- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
More on Foreign Law
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 5:32PM
The threats, they come fast and furious. But vigilant people are out there, trying to warn us. THis, from lawyer Christine Flowers writing in the Philly Daily News, is superbly explained -- better than my earlier attempts on the subject. It's simple: No government is just unless it rests on the consent of the governed. We Americans have not consented to foreign laws. Case closed.
For four or five Supreme Court justices to refuse to understand that incredibly simple concept shows that we live in very very very very dangerous times. Kudos to Flowers for explaining it.
Former McCain Strategist Makes the Case for Gay Marriage
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 4:35PM
McCain presidential campaign strategist Steve Schmidt spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans today and made a very strong Republican case for gay marriage. I don't agree with him entirely. For example, I think he underestimates the potential backlash among social conservatives if the GOP were to abandon its stance on marriage, and overlooks other electoral challenges -- for instance, gay marriage is one of the issues where Republicans appeal to Hispanic voters who may otherwise not agree with the party's economic stances. But the strength of his argument, I think, lies in the fact that he drops the sanctimonious tone employed by many advocates of gay marriage and shows respect and understanding to those who firmly believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I think the whole speech is worth a read, but here's a taste:
Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable….
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
This is more or less where I stand. My political beliefs are always rooted in the basic idea that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do not harm others in the process, and I don't see how allowing two people of the same sex to marry harms a third party. In my ideal world, government's role would be limited to granting something akin to civil unions for everybody and the concept of marriage would be preserved for religious institutions, who would have the right to marry or not marry whoever they choose. But as long as government is in the marriage business, I just don't see the harm in extending marriage rights to same sex couples.
Palin Gets Personal in Pro-Life Speech
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 3:57PM
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said in her speech to an Evansville, Indiana pro-life dinner that she understood the temptation to abortion because she felt it when pregnant with her son Trig. I'm sympathetic to conservatives who argue that pro-life praise of Palin's decision to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome seems to implicitly accept some pro-choice premises. But I do think there is something to be said for a strong pro-life example, as well as an antiabortion message that comes wrapped in empathy.
Unfortunately, this latest disclosure will probably just deepen people's pre-existing adoration or hatred of Palin without contributing anything new to our discussions of abortion.
Susan Roesgen
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 1:23PM
As bad as her bias, lack of professionalism, and overall shrillness generally are, what most struck me about her hamfisted attempt at reporting was her utter incomprehension of the views of the people she was covering. There are some protests -- think LaRouchie events -- where it is not easy to tell what in the hell is going on, but these gatherings represented a major American political viewpoint. It was if I attended a demonstration in favor of universal health care, mixed it up with the protestors, and started sputtering, "But... but... the Republicans want to give you a tax credit!"
UPDATE: As was noted by a commenter below, it's being reported that Roesgen applied for a job at "right-wing" Fox News -- twice.
Modernizers and Mass Unskilled Immigration
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 12:57PM
David Frum is, in my view, correct about immigration policy. But good luck selling even moderate restrictionism to Republican Party "modernizers." That's not to say there aren't good reasons for reform-minded Republicans to embrace such a position: it's compatible with the goals of less income inequality, less cultural/linguistic balkanization, and less racial polarization. Unfortunately, it is also very easy for supporters of the Bush-McCain-Obama approach to immigration to demagogue the issue and in turn whip up the demagogues on the other side. It's the kind of debate "modernizers" are temperamentally inclined to shy away from. But perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised (though so far the comments don't look that way).
CNN's Roesgen Then and Now
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 12:50PM
A short video contrasting the news reports I posted about yesterday, showing that CNN has a problem with Hitler comparisons when they're directed at Obama rather than Bush. This may be the most succinct demonstration of liberal media bias that you will ever see:
Roland in the Dough
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 12:23PM
Illinois Sen. Roland Burris raked in a grand total of $845 in the fundraising period from January to March. Considering that Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has already raised more than $1.1 million, I'd say the Democrats are getting ready to cut this albatross loose.
Big Breather Is Watching Over You
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 12:13PM
The ever-expanding regulatory state will drive Obamism. This, from a Wall Street Journal news alert:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, setting the stage for a battle over regulations that could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. economy.
Unless superceded by Congressional action, the EPA finding potentially could lead to a wave of regulations across the economy, putting stricter emissions limits on a wide range of enterprises from power plants and oil refineries to automobiles and cement makers.
Soros-Funded Clinton Hack's Blog: Tea Parties Righty 'Astroturf'
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 12:01PM
George Soros
Perhaps the action tank run by Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff John Podesta should be a little more circumspect before throwing stones.
Think Progress, a Center for American Progress Action Fund blog, parrots House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's clumsy talking points on the recent tea party protests across the nation. Pelosi said the movement "is funded by the high end - we call call it astroturf, it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." (See John Gizzi's excellent profile of the Center for American Progress at the Capital Research Center website. Note that the Fund is a 501c4 organization that is officially a CAP affiliate.)
CAP has been beating the class-warfare drum and demonizing Wall Street and the capitalist system itself in order to promote President Obama's nakedly statist agenda.
Now it has joined the effort to delegitimize this legitimate popular uprising, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the same kind of uprising that forged this nation out the fires of revolution, is funded by the same billionaire leftists who want to destroy the American system.
Let's go over just a short list of the billionaire liberals who pay CAP's bills with grant data I found in philanthropy databases.
Herb and Marion Sandler, whom Time magazine blames for the financial crisis, have given CAP $7,150,000 through the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation since 2004. George Soros, who spent around $24 million on left-wing 527 groups in 2004 to try to defeat President Bush, has given CAP $510,000 through the Open Society Institute since 2005. Rob Glaser of RealNetworks has given CAP $1,891,000 since 2003 through the Glaser Progress Foundation. Embattled New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine gave CAP $25,000 in 2003 through the Jon S. Corzine Foundation.
And, shame on me for missing this previously: a charity of Wall Street's poster child for Fascist corporatism, Goldman Sachs, funds CAP. The Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund has given CAP $105,000 since 2007.
Is Generation Next, Generation Statist?
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 11:16AM
Over on the main site, I have a column up about how President Obama is taking a big gamble by expanding the size and scope of government so vastly, given that polls show most Americans want government to be scaled back once we're no longer in an economic crisis. Yesterday, Kristen Soltis, who has been doing a ton of research on the attitudes of younger voters, offered a bit of a different take. She presents data that show the younger generation to be much more open to big government than older Americans, and concludes:
Messaging that focuses on the need for less government and lower taxes is not likely to be as well received or convincing to this generation. This isn't to say these messages won't work, to be sure. But the spectre of Big Government is not as frightening to young voters, nor is the devotion to the free market so prevalent. In order for the Republican Party to grow long-term, they must work to impact these belief structures and spend the effort convincing a new generation of the sorts of beliefs that are taken for granted among older cohorts.
I encourage you to check out Kristen's entire piece, but I think there are a few things to keep in mind. While younger Americans may be more open to bigger government than older people, as some of the polling she cites shows, this has typically been the case. This makes some intuitive sense given that when people are young, they tend to be "takers" in that they use a lot of government services (public schools, student loans), but don't yet pay a ton of taxes. Yet as they grow older, they move up the tax brackets, have more negative interactions with government, confront red tape as they open businesses, etc. So it doesn't surprise me that they naturally become more skeptical about government. (Ideally, we'd have access to a longitudinal study that would track the same group of voters over time and see how their attitudes change.)
Kristen highlights Pew's values surveys which show that in 2002/03 Americans, as a whole, had a more positive view of government than they did back in 1987/88. But if you look at the chart below, based on Gallup data and produced by USA Today, you see that Americans' attitudes toward government were pretty volatile during the period in between, and through today.
So, while right now, the public is more open to big government than it may have been during the Reagan era, and that sentiment is more pronounced among younger Americans, it's important to recognize how easily things can change over time. Relating this to my original point, I think that the outcome of Obama's grand experiment with government is going to be the key determining factor for the next generation's views on its proper role, not clever messaging on the part of Republicans. If Obama is seen as a successful president who brings wonderful health care to all at a lower price, creates environmentally friendly energy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and improves our education system, while solving the entitlement crisis, and he does this without raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans or running up unsustainable deficits, then yes, I'm sure younger Americans will grow up to love big government.
Of course, if I believed all of those things would happen, I'd be a liberal. But as a conservative, I believe that Obama's policies will prove disastrous, that they will bring higher taxes and inflation, and that the younger generation will be buckling under the weight of a $53 trillion long-term entitlement deficit caused by promises made by prior generations. This will provide the next opening for believers in limited government, as well as Republicans, should they decide to be the party of limited government. Remember, the Democrats' "Six for '06" agenda that helped them take back Congress didn't contain any groundbreaking new ideas – they were recycled policies on raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, etc. They just looked fresh because the public had become so disenchanted with Bush and the Iraq War. I'm not saying that messaging isn't important, but just emphasizing that the ball is largely in Obama's court.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 10:06AM
- Abolish proms. Finally, real solutions (Washington Post)
- The "New Foundations" won't even prop up Obama's rhetoric (Washington Post)
- Lessons learned in the years following Columbine (Slate)
- Timothy Dolan thinking big in NY (NRO)
- Spengler, now an editor for First Things, and his personal journey (Asia Times)
18 Percent Sounds Like A Lot
Posted by on 4.17.09 @ 9:17AM
Drudge is touting a new Rasmussen poll showing that 75 percent of Texans would choose to remain in the United States if it ever came up for a vote, but to me the real news is that 18 percent -- or nearly one out of five Texans -- are actually pro-secession. Given that the state population is 24, 326, 974, according to the 2008 Census estimates, that would put the pro-secession contingent at 4.4 million.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Socialist Schakowsky Calls Conservatives "Despicable"
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 9:07PM
Socialist Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) yesterday denounced the tea party protests on Tax Day, alleging a vast right-wing conspiracy organized them to protest Leviathan's juggernaut.
"The ‘tea parties' being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," said Schakowsky, a card-carrying member of the socialist Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt. Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians."
To describe Schakowsky, who no doubt would approve of the infamous Department of Homeland Security document that labeled the nation's conservatives and libertarians as dangerous potential terrorists, as a kook would be an insult to kooks of goodwill everywhere.
Southern Poverty Law Center Tries to Cash in on DHS Report
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 9:02PM
As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano offered a meaningless apology for just a footnote in the notorious DHS report that labeled all right-wingers as potential terrorists, the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center is already trying to cash in on the publicity surrounding the report.
The fundraising email the SPLC sent out today is shown below:
BrownShirts Cuff Documentarian. Literally.
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 6:10PM
Every "media freedom" outlet in the country should be up in arms about this, helping John Ziegler pay for a lawsuit, shouting from the rooftops against this blatant and disgusting and downright frightening abridgement of the First Amendment. Watch this video for yourself. Now THIS is authoritarism run amuck. In it, Ziegler good-naturedly tries to wait outside a hall, with camera in tow, while Katie Couric is given the Cronkite Award for supposed excellence in journalism. (We'll set aside the obvious note that this is like naming Frankenstein as the next "Miss America.") And there, outside a gathering of journalists, this journalist is handcuffed and dragged rather roughly across a sidewalk, for no good discernible reason, because he was laughing and as unthreatening as a dachsund puppy.
Watch it for yourself. Feel your blood boil. This is quite literally the sort of thing that calls for a public rebuke from the highest levels of both journalism AND government. For that matter, I wonder what Ms. Couric thinks of this. If she has even an ounce of integrity, she too will denounce the treatment of Mr. Ziegler. Fat chance.
Republicans for Higher Taxes
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 5:19PM
The tea party protests evidently didn't have much of an effect on Republican senators in Florida, where the GOP-controlled chamber voted unanimously in favor of a $65.6 billion budget that includes a massive hike in tobacco taxes and other state fees. The budget now moves to the House, where the taxes are expected to encounter more resistance.
Behind the Scenes Footage of CNN's Roesgen at Chicago Tea Party
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 4:55PM
The site Founding Bloggers has posted this new footage of Susan Roesgen at the Chicago tea party. In the video, a frustrated female attendee confronts the CNN correspondent over her cherry-picking of inflamatory signs at the event to deligitimize the protesters in the network's coverage.
Right-Wing Extremist: 'Get Organized! Roll Tide!'
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 4:08PM
Tuscaloosa News staff writer Wayne Grayson covered Wednesday's Tea Party protest:
Robert Stacy McCain, a former Washington Times assistant national editor and contributor to American Spectator magazine, was one of several speakers at the event. McCain discussed an April 7 report published by the Department of Homeland Security that addressed the threat of “right-wing extremism.” In the manner of comedian Jeff Foxworthy, McCain told the crowd how they could tell if they are right-wing extremists. “If you believe that you know how to run your life better than some Washington politician, you might be right-wing extremist,” McCain said as many in the crowd laughed and applauded. McCain noted the nationwide participation in other tea parties. He said Pittsburgh and Austin, Texas, had thousands turn out to protest. In Alabama, Montgomery had more than 1,000 people and Mobile had several hundred. He told protesters to remain calm if others call them crazy. He said the key was to organize. “You’ve got to be positive and get organized,” McCain said. “If you’re going to sit around and whine, you’re never going to win. Bear Bryant would have told you that.”
I was raised on The Crimson Tide, and folks down home sure know how to throw a Tea Party. There's video at the Hot Air Green Room, and more at The Other McCain.
Down with Dawn
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 1:55PM
Paul Mirengoff does an excellent takedown of Justice Department nominee Dawn Johnsen. Read it. Now.
Specter-Toomey, Ct'd
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 1:27PM
Let's get back to the main point of the New Majority post I mention below, which continues this discussion:
Toomey is betting that Republicans would do better in a blue-leaning state like Pennsylvania if they purged the last remaining moderates from the party. He's (again) challenging Arlen Specter - and this time, unlike last, he may well succeed. Just as Ned Lamont succeeded against Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary...
Toomey theorizes that Republicans would do better in Pennsylvania if they were more outspokenly prolife and defiantly opposed to the Obama economic plan. The reality: If nominated, Toomey's prolife views would cost him what remains of traditional Republican support in the Philadelphia suburbs and his anti-stimulus stance would damage him with working-class voters elsewhere in the state.
As I've said before, in 2004 Specter-Toomey was a no-brainer for conservatives. Republicans controlled the Senate and were favored to expand their majority regardless of what happened in Pennsylvania. The political climate was somewhat more conservative. It was worth rolling the dice on a more conservative congressman who had a track record of winning in a swing district that had recently voted for Democratic presidential candidates. Toomey didn't look like a sure loser, even though he was a much riskier proposition, and Specter was expendable.
Five years later, with the Democrats one seat a way from a 60-seat Senate majority, Specter doesn't look so expendable. At the moment, Toomey looks even riskier. Specter's numbers among Democrats and independents are almost as good as his numbers among Republicans are bad. I don't think a primary is a bad thing -- Specter might be in a different place on card check without Pat Toomey in the race, for example -- but Pennsylvania Republicans should ask both candidates hard questions. Specter should be asked why he can be counted on to thwart Democratic initiatives more often than enable them. Toomey should be asked why he thinks he can hold on to this Senate seat. And everyone should watch to see how changing political conditions affect Specter's expendability or Toomey's viability as 2010 approaches.
In politics, if you don't win you can't accomplish your policy goals. But politics isn't sports and winning isn't everything. In football, I root for my home team and I don't care whether Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady or Matt Cassel throws the game-winning touchdown. I just want to win. In politics, you want to win for a purpose: having someone with an "R" next to his or her name win doesn't mean anything if it doesn't produce the policy results you are seeking.
That's the dilemma Republicans find themselves in with Specter. Sometimes the best you can do is settle for an imperfect candidate who can win. But ultimately, it is more important to try to shift the political climate in a more favorable direction than to win by accepting the current climate as a given. Look again at the reasons people give for deserting the Pennsylvania GOP -- it's not just abortion or the religious right. There are problems with Republican positions almost across the board. As long as that remains the case, "winning" with such voters will mean some pyrrhic victories along the way.
Ned Lamont Would Have Won
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 1:11PM
David Frum compares the Republican primary fight between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey to the 2006 Democratic primary between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont:
In the Connecticut example, Democrats escaped lightly from the Lamont blunder. Instead of delivering the seat to the Republicans, Lieberman ran as an independent Democrat and won, and since then has voted more or less along the Democratic party line. In Pennyslvania, by contrast, the defeat of Specter almost certainly will mean the loss of both Pennsylvania Senates to the Democrats for a generation.
Frum might be right about Specter-Toomey -- I'll get to that in another post -- though it is premature to write both Pennsylvania Senate seats off "for a generation." But having done some coverage of the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, I'm quite sure he's wrong about Lieberman-Lamont. Or, more precisely, Lamont-Schlesinger.
Very early after Lamont won the primary, it was clear that the general-election math favored Lieberman. Lieberman was winning among Republicans and independents while holding on to a critical mass of Democrats. Sure enough, on election day exit polls showed Lieberman winning 70 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of independents, and 33 percent of Democrats. The fact that Democrats were a slight plurality of those who turned out (38 percent) was the only thing that kept Lamont (who carried 65 percent of them) in the race.
Lieberman was uniquely positioned to unite the center and right while leaving Lamont isolated on the left. He won independents and 55 percent of moderates. People who were nonideological and not making a judgment call on the Republican Congress also tended to vote Lieberman. But his support among the Republican base was overwhelming. In addition to winning 70 percent of Republicans, Lieberman took 66 percent of conservatives, 55 percent of weekly and more-than-weekly churchgoers, 76 percent (!) of voters who wanted Republicans to control the Senate, and 72 percent of voters who supported George W. Bush.
But if Lieberman hadn't run as an independent, the picture changes dramatically. The same weak Republican candidate who allowed Lieberman, on the basis of very few issues, to come in and gobble up the GOP vote would have gotten clobbered by Lamont in the general election. Lamont's antiwar views were not out of the mainstream in Connecticut. Overall, 66 percent of voters disapproved of the Iraq war (49 percent strongly disapproved) while only 33 percent approved. On the question of whether the U.S should withdraw some or all troops, the voters were 63 percent to 31 percent in favor of withdrawal. Only 15 percent said "send more."
Not all Connecticut voters shared Lamont's (or the netroots') intensity on the issue, which is why Lieberman did better among strong supporters of the Iraq war and Bush anti-terrorism policies than Lamont generally did among voters who opposed them. But the point is that Lamont's views wouldn't have been a barrier to him winning the election. In a two-way race, Republican Alan Schlesinger would have surely gotten more than 21 percent of the Republican vote and an equal percentage of the conservative vote. But he would have been hard pressed to win Lieberman's nonideological support and would have lost to Ned Lamont.
The moral of the story? There are two: 1.) Let's not let certain Republicans blame all the party's problems on abortion or social conservatism, which they don't care about, while ignoring the unpopularity of the Iraq war, which they fervently supported; 2.) Sometimes a creative or lucky candidate, like Lieberman in 2006, can turn what all the polls say is a losing issue into a winner on election day.
Flashback: In 2006, CNN's Roesgen Joked About Bush/Hitler Mask
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 12:27PM
Rarely is there as transparent an example of liberal media bias as the tantrum thrown by CNN's Susan Roesgen yesterday while "reporting" on a tea party, but the full extent of her bias only comes into light when you look back at her attitude toward anti-Bush protesters.
In video posted by Paul Chesser from yesterday's CNN broadcast, Roesgen harassed a man who had a sign in which Obama was portrayed as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?" an indignant Roesgen hollered.
Yet back in 2006, when she was covering protests against the Bush administration's response to Katrina, she jokingly referred to this photo of a man wearing a mask with devil horns and a Hitler mustache as a Bush "look-alike." (Video available at NewsBusters).
Personally, I don't think it's appropriate -- or helpful -- for any protesters to portray the President in such a light, but this isn't about me. The point is that when an anti-Bush protester assailed our last president with offensive imagery, Roesgen viewed it as harmless fun, but when somebody dared portray Obama in a similar fashion, she sanctimoniously attacked the protester on national television.
UPDATE: More behind the scenes footage of Roesgen at the Chicago tea party here.
The Coming False Recovery
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 11:38AM
Over at RealClearMarkets, the superb John Tamny says much the same thing I said in my column today to the effect that what some will portray as an economic recovery this fall won't be a real one. The advantage of Tamny's piece, unlike mine, is that Tamny actually explains the economic reasoning behind that assessment, whereas I merely asserted it in the course of moving toward another point about how conservatives should deal with it, tactically speaking. Tamny says that because of inflation (and other factors resulting from a devalued dollar), "what some deem recovery will be the kind of growth that shows up in government statistics, but that most won’t notice."
Well worth a read.
Alamo Tea Party
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 11:18AM
Fox's Greta Van Susteren interviewed Fox's Glenn Beck, who was at the San Antonio tea party yesterday, for her program last night, and asked him about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's suggestion that it's okay to secede from the U.S. Beck's fine answer about Texan patriotism:
These people love America. They just think Texas does America best.
Followed by chants of "USA! USA! USA!"
The North Korean Test
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 10:32AM
President Obama's new brand of foreign policy is based, in part, on the belief that abandoning arrogance and brashness and adopting a more humble and conciliatory posture will help us forge alliances and end up making us safer. The recent developments in North Korea show the limits of that strategy. In spite of warnings, North Korea conducted a missile test. In response, the Obama administration promised "consequences," immediately called a meeting with the U.N. Security Council and --surprise!-- China and Russia stood in the way of any sort of resolution that had teeth. The Security Council ended up agreeing on a watered down statement. Yet that modest statement was still enough to elicit a vow from a defiant North Korea to kick out U.N. inspectors, withdraw from the six party talks, and restart the processing of plutonium. Now, the Obama administration is proposing tougher financial sanctions against 11 North Korean companies, but it will have to get China and Russia to agree to the sanctions.
This is just one area in which Obama's belief that he could do a lot better than George W. Bush is being put to the test. It's obviously too early to cast judgment, but at the minimum, the North Korea issue demonstrates how much more complex our foreign policy challenges are than they seem on the campaign trail.
Newspaper, Boston; Dateline, Frankfort
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 10:25AM
WTKK's Michael Graham notes the New York Times-owned Boston Globe's tea party report this morning:
I shouldn't have been surprised when I picked up the (Boston Globe-Democrat, as Graham calls it) this morning--the day after thousands of BOSTON-area citizens gathered at BOSTON Harbor for a BOSTON Tea Party to protest (in part) the taxpayer abuse by our BOSTON-based state government...and found a single local story in the BOSTON paper. Buried on page A16 there was a small AP story with the dateline "Frankfort, KY."
As Graham says, the AP missive repeats the Left's talking points about the genesis of the tea parties (promoted by Dick Armey the lobbyist!). He concludes:
Here's the Boston Globe-Democrat's model for journalistic success:
Ignore a national story inspired by local Boston history for as long as possible;
Refuse to cover the story when it becomes local;
Misreport the story with a wire report from Kentucky;
Then wonder why you're losing $1 million a week.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 10:04AM
- Like it or not, the tea parties represent a movement politicians must heed (WSJ)
- Some economists with harsh words for stimulus-mongers (Reason)
- Objectivity left outside the tea party (Weekly Standard)
- Wow, Robert Higgs really lets ole' Bernanke have it
- The results are in: let 18 year-olds drink (Forbes)
- Uh-oh, Ross "Big Government" Douthat thinks the tea partiers might be on to something... (Atlantic)
- ...But Reihan Salam thinks Sarah Palin has undergone a lobotomy (Daily Beast)
Accountants With Guns
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 9:58AM
Would you watch a gritty IRS agent reality show?
What If They Threw A Tea Party and Only Astroturf Came?
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 9:45AM
Liz Mair looks at the claims that yesterday's anti-tax, anti-spending tea parties were all top-down events organized by the conservative or Republican establishment rather than a grassroots effort. She finds these claims wanting.
Sometimes the distinction between grassroots and Astroturf isn't 100 percent clear-cut. Obviously, various establishment entities played a role in the tea party business. It's just as obvious, as Mair points out, that a lot of the people involved on a practical level had nothing to do with the RNC, CNBC, Fox News, FreedomWorks, or anything related. George Soros and others helped fund and stimulate seemingly grassroots opposition to the Bush administration. But to claim that there was no actual grassroots opposition to the Bush administration would be insane. Ditto the draft-Perot movement in 1991-92, which featured both grassroots and Astroturf elements. Sometimes top-down movements trickle down to the grassroots and other times establishment figures or groups try to piggyback on some popular movement, since in a democracy leaders are often really followers.
In any event, I have my own take on tea parties and tax revolts in the May issue of the very un-establishment Ron Paulite Young American Revolution magazine.
I Wonder How Much Stimulus Cash...
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 9:30AM
...is earmarked for advertising how wonderful stimulus cash is?
Last Roundup of Tea Party Attendance Reports
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 8:38AM
By now everyone who cares should be able to find official or media estimates of attendance at tea parties in cities they care about. But as promised here is what folks from around the country have reported to me, including several from last night:
In my home state of North Carolina (where there were parties in at least two dozen -- and maybe many more -- cities and towns), John Locke Foundation president John Hood reports:
After scanning the Thursday morning press coverage and filling in the remaining blanks, it is safe to say that the statewide count exceeded 17,500.
A 75-minute video of the Raleigh tea party is posted at The Locker Room.
Reporting from Boone, NC, John Wheeler Jr. says:
The first was on the campus of Appalachian State University (Paul C: you know, the Michigan slayer), outside the Student Union, hosted by the College Republicans from 11 a.m. till 3 p.m. There were probably 50 people there all the time, with upwards of 125 or more during the breaks between classes when there was lots of foot traffic from students going to and from classes and stopping to listen.
The second event was held at the Hardees Restaurant immediately adjacent to the Boone ASU campus, from 4 to 6 p.m....this event generated a large turnout and lots of attention along the main road, Highway 321, where heavy traffic was passing by. I estimate the crowd at 300 or more at its peak, with over 200 people there continuously from 3:30 p.m. on.
Heartland Institute's John O'Hara says official estimates were between 4,000 and 5,000 in Chicago.
Former Army meteorologist Charlie Clough reports:
Here in the county seat of Harford County just north of Baltimore city we had 500+ in attendence with light rain, moderate wind, and temperature in the 40s. Great rally.
WTKK talk show host Michael Graham reports from Boston:
1500 at Boston Harbor, tossing tea chests into the water.
Former Michigan State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk's daughter, Maria Straatsma, says about 1,000 showed up in Grand Rapids. He also passed along a link to a friend's slideshow from Lansing. Meanwhile Traverse City blogger Jason Gillman (watch for a photo gallery soon) reports the following:
Grand Rapids MI reports over 3K (some saying 3800 per Fire dept); Lansing 5000 per Detroit News -- my estimate closer to 4500-4800; 450 first Traverse City event, 200 2nd event.
Nashville talk show host Steve Gill said at about 10:30 last night:
Capitol Hill Police in Nashville (photos) gave an estimate of about 9,860 for the Nashville event. Springfield, Tennessee drew 300. There were 2,000 in Mt. Juliet Tennessee. And about 4,000 in downtown Franklin, Tennessee tonight.
Blogger Craig Sprout says about 500 showed up in Billings, Mont.
Tom Gaitens of Sarasota reports:
We had 2500 In Tampa at 5pm and another 750 at noon…great day…
4000K in Jacksonville, 2000 in Sarasota, 1500 In Tallahassee…First Coast had 2000K…Ft Lauderdale had 4000…it was amazing.
Adam Cahn says in Austin, Texas, "I'd guess 4 to 5000...dunno the official police estimate. Whatever the actual number, it was A LOT!!!"
An unidentified emailer:
Oklahoma City attendance per local news stations: One said 4.000, the other 5,000. I was there and believe them. Yes, those are big numbers, but we have a ton of people that fit the new DHS definition of right wing terrorists!
Jim Plaisted in the Show-Me State:
St Louis, Missouri Tea Party - Between 8,000 to 10,000 attended per the park ranger. Very well mannered crowd. Very non-partisan, very enthusiastic and very disappointed in the current administration and prior administration for increasing the debt. Particularly angry about the Obama administrations huge increase to the national debt – and doubts about our ability to pay it back in our lifetimes. Asked about passing the burden of the current administration’s greediness and lack of fiscal responsibility onto our children and grand children. All of the people at the tea party responded with a resounding and loud "NO!"
Russell Cook in Phoenix says about 6,000 showed, and sent a link to a news report's aerial shot (news reporter's dumb question to a teenager: "Are you more upset about federal taxes or state taxes?")
And finally my sister Amy in Rhode Island says her Facebook friends told her between 1,000 and 2,000 hit the streets of Providence to protest.
That should be all from me on this and thanks to everyone for their reports!
Did Pat Toomey Give Us A Democratic Senate?
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 8:29AM
On the main site, Jeffrey Lord has a great exclusive story on Arlen Specter's decision to stand and fight Pat Toomey for Pennsylvania's Republican senatorial nomination in 2010. Toomey is obviously going to focus on Specter's votes with the Democratic majority. For his part, Specter is blaming Toomey for the fact a Democratic majority exists in the first place:
Without missing a beat, speaking without notes, Specter zeroed in specifically on Toomey and the Club, charging the latter with "cannibalistic tactics" that had lost the GOP control of the US Senate in 2006.
"Toomey represents the Club for Growth which has engaged in cannibalistic tactics. When they fought [now defeated GOP Senator Lincoln] Chafee in the Rhode Island primary, spent all his money, beat him in the general, that cost us control of the Senate. In the Senate...we would have controlled the Senate had we retained Chafee's seat in 2007 and 2008."
In the interest of full disclosure, I did not support a primary challenge to Lincoln Chafee in 2006 because I personally wanted the Republican Party to maintain some diversity of opinion on the Iraq war, which was then the biggest millstone dragging the party down, even though I was closer to conservative challenger Steve Laffey on almost all other questions. But Specter's conclusion is debatable, to say the least.
For starters, if you look at the polling Chafee was in the same position both before and after the primary -- competitive but clearly in trouble. Chafee was last over 50 percent in April; the Republican primary was held in September. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse first took the lead in June. The general-election contest again tightened at the tail end of the campaign, with Chafee and Whitehouse effectively tied in the final polls. Maybe Chafee would have pulled it out if he could have spent all his money and focused all of his attention on Whitehouse. More likely, the undecideds would have been swept up by the Democratic tide and broken against a GOP incumbent anyway.
Second, despite the contentious Chafee-Laffey primary exit polls showed Chafee winning 94 percent of Republican voters against Whitehouse in November. Chafee also took 74 percent of conservatives while Whitehouse carried 76 percent of liberals. Chafee also drew 88 percent of those who approved of the job George W. Bush was doing as president.
Finally, if the GOP's control of the Senate came down to Chafee how secure would that control have been? Chafee was so liberal that he made Arlen Specter look like Jesse Helms. His lifetime American Conservative Union rating was 37 out of 100. In 2005, he scored just 12 out of 100 -- the same rating as Hillary Clinton, a point worse than Russ Feingold. That same year, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action rated Chafee 75 out of 100.
That means even if Chafee caucused with the Republicans, the party would have had no better than nominal control. And there is no guarantee Chafee would have caucused with Republicans. Shortly after losing his Senate race, he suggested he had remained a Republican only to help Rhode Island secure federal funding from a GOP majority. He answered yes when a reporter asked if he thought his defeat by a Democrat helped the country by costing Republicans control of the Senate. And he eventually bolted the party, becoming an independent. Had Chafee been re-elected, there would have been enormous pressure on him to pull a Jim Jeffords and not much reason to think he would have resisted.
Now, the decision to invest resources in Laffey's primary campaign can be reasonably second-guessed (the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee obviously reached a different conclusion). Chafee was likelier to retain the seat; Republicans who can win in Rhode Island are rare (though Gov. Donald Carcieri held on in 2006 despite being to Chafee's right). Similarly, I'm not sure that now is the time to primary Specter.
But a Republican Party that owes its power to Lincoln Chafee isn't going to be in power for very long. In his campaign against Toomey, Specter needs to make sure his fellow Republicans don't reach the same conclusion about him.
The Right-Wing Extremist Watch
Posted by on 4.16.09 @ 6:08AM
On the main page, we've posted an updated version of Matthew Vadum's timely dispatch on the Obama-ized Department of Homeland Security's attempt to police conservative thought.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"Wake Up and Smell the Fascism"
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 8:39PM
Months after people like me raised the alarm about the Bush and Obama administrations' incipient Fascist corporatism, it seems America is catching on.
As RealClearPolitics noted, Fox Business News reporter Cody Willard spoke the unpalatable truth today:
"You got to love this one right here," he said, pointing to a sign held by a young girl. "'I'm only eleven and deep in debt.' She had to pay for the $160 billion Republican stimulus package that came out in 2007. Now she is paying for the $800 billion Republican Democrat fascist stimulus package that is coming out this time. Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?"
Here is the video courtesy of the moonbats at DailyKos TV:
More Liberal Whining
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 7:31PM
Liberal whiner Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign to Destroy America’s Future...errrrr, whoops, I meant to write Campaign for America's Future, cries himself a river at the Huffington Post gossip website:
Fox News is flogging Astroturf "tea parties" underwritten by corporate lobbyists, while its pundits warn that raising the top income tax rate to the level it was under Bill Clinton constitutes "socialism."
Whatever, Bob.
This is Rebellion?
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 7:26PM
Drudge linked a report from the NBC affiliate in DC which told the story of some too-polite "protesters":
It was a great idea, really. Take a million tea bags and dump them in Lafayette Park to protest government spending. Hip, hip, hoo-ray!
But a funny thing happened en route to a visually pleasing Tax Day protest. The National Park Service said the tea party protesters didn't have the proper permit to dump their bags.
So instead of a raucous visual demonstration, all that was left were images of the tea party packing up their boxes of tea on a cold, soggy day in D.C.
Doh!
You've got to be kidding -- these supposedly indignant taxpayers don't follow through on their plans because of a permit?! I don't think that was an issue at Boston Harbor...
Do they issue permits to everyone who trashes the National Mall every Fourth of July?
More from the CNN Reporter
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 7:07PM
Susan Roesgen does not like the mock-up of Obama with the moustache and special salute:
Your Tax Dollars At Work
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 6:07PM
Funding an Iranian nuclear program. Terry Jeffrey has the story.
A Few More
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 5:26PM
After linking earlier posts to Facebook I discovered a couple more friends who reported in there:
Jennifer Butler estimates about 3,000 in Knoxville, Tenn.
Jonathan Bandy says 1,000+ in Morehead City, NC.
Many reports have been aggregated by the evil (in AP's eyes) Google as well.
Crazy Time with Chris and Mike
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 5:26PM
The AP is doing an unusually good job of digging up dirt on a candidate before a general election.
A week after the Republican front-runner in the New Jersey governor's race said he'd reject all future campaign donations from lawyers to whom he gave no-bid contracts as U.S. attorney, he was scheduled to attend a $500-a-plate fundraiser hosted by a lawyer involved in one of the oversight deals.
Christopher Christie's campaign hoped to raise $100,000 during the Tuesday night fundraiser co-hosted by John P. Inglesino, a lawyer with Stern & Kilcullen. The Roseland law firm's principal, Herb Stern, was picked by Christie to settle Medicare fraud claims at the state's medical and dental school, and Inglesino was Stern's chief counsel for the monitoring work in a contract that earned the firm $3 million.
Let's back up the train here. Just back it up. Just a sec. We need to map this one out.
Christie says he won't take donations from lawyers to whom he gave no-bid contracts as U.S. attorney.
He then schedules a fundraiser by one such lawyer.
That fundraiser is $500-a-plate. And it was to raise... $100,000?
Look, if Christie was able to think far enough ahead to mete out the plate costs, and the eventual take, he might have also looked at the contract he gave to the firm hosting the dinner for him. And how do they address this problem? They don't do a mea culpa. They instead just employ more Orwellian verve:
"Our campaign's fundraising has been 100 percent legal, compliant and appropriate," said [Mike] DuHaime. "As a matter of fact, we go above and beyond the law when it comes to our full disclosure and transparency of everybody who gives us even a dollar."
Mike, I'm having a hard time seeing that "above and beyond" part. Just because you're saying it doesn't mean I'm buying it.
What's the strategy here? Do something that looks shady, get caught, affirm that Your Dignity Is Too Great To Even Contemplate Scandal and then hope that it flies? At least when Clinton did it we had some pretty great television viewing for a while.
Update: A reader points out that that's the same mind who convinced Rudy Guiliani that the primary began on Feb 5th in Florida and that ignoring all the early states was a good idea. How're President Giuliani's approval ratings doing, anyway?
Tea Party Numbers Continued
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:52PM
Jonathan Duhamel of Tucson, Ariz. says a local television station estimated 2,000 there.
The Locke Foundation's John Hood has reported the following North Carolina numbers in The Locker Room:
I attended the Greensboro Tea Party protest at noon. The crowd began to swell by about 11:30am. Lots of homemade signs, many of them biting or funny. For example:
“Protect My Country — We'll Do The Rest”
“Uncle Sam’s Pork Stinks”
“TEA: Taxes Enough Already”
“Born Free, Taxed to Death”
“I'm 12 with a 160k debt” (held up by a kid)
...I estimated the crowd at peak at around 1,200.
Hood hears from other cities:
Goldsboro (home of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base): 300
Winston-Salem (just a stone's throw from Greensboro): over 900, reports the Winston-Salem Journal
Charlotte (a higher estimate from the Charlotte Observer than reported by a Locke rep earlier): 2,000
Fayetteville (also higher estimate than earlier Locke report) -- Fayetteville Observer says 400.
Locke's Chad Adams is now in Asheville, NC, and reports from his Blackberry:
Around 1000 here in Asheville and growing!
Mike Thayer says 400 showed up in Iowa City, Iowa.
Dan Curran says there were 7,000-8,000 in Madison, Wisc.
Dan Yorke of WPRO in Rhode Island says:
I'm told 2500 in Providence.
Taxpayer Relief at the "Luxury Lavatory"
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:52PM
Sometimes your tax dollars are literally flushed down the toilet. Consider this example from New Hampshire:
"About seventy women and forty men" visited the Senate President and Speaker of the House's new taxpayer-funded "luxury lavatory" at the State House to relieve themselves all at once today, sources tell NowHampshire.com.
About 500 people showed up for the Concord "Taxpayer Tea Party."
After protesting the federal government's spending policies in Concord during the noon hour many of the taxpayers needed to relieve themselves. So Republican state Rep. Fran Wendelboe invited anyone who had to go to the third floor bathroom, which cost the state $72,000 and is seen by many in New Hampshire as an unnecessary extravagance in the middle of an economic recession.
Sources on the ground tell NowHampshire.com three state troopers were called up to monitor the taxpayers even though they were well behaved. It's unclear whether the troopers were called in at the behest of Speaker Terie Norelli or Senate President Sylvia Larson.
The fancy bathroom has become the source of controversy for leadership in both houses of the state legislature. Senate leadership says the new bathroom was necessary because of urine stains on the floor.
No sightings of former Sen. Larry Craig were reported.
Obama's Big Government Gamble
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:37PM
A new USA Today poll has some noteworthy results for those of us interested in limiting the size of government. While a slim majority of Americans (52 percent) are at least supportive of bigger government during the current economic crisis, by a 3-1 margin, they say they want to cut back the expansion of government once the crisis is over. Additionally, 55 percent of Americans think that Obama's economic proposals spend too much money, and by a 50 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans say government is "trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals..." While majorities support Obama's housing plan, the stimulus package, and more regulation of financial institutions, only 39 percent support bank and auto bailouts.
Add up all of these numbers, and what it tells me is that Obama is taking a huge risk in pushing through a raft of new spending, because when his actions drive up our debt and trigger either inflation and/or broad based tax increases down the road, there's likely to be a massive backlash against his expansionary agenda. Obama is betting that government will be able to solve our nation's problems, and build America's trust, before the bill comes due.
CNN Reporter's Anti-Tea Party Tantrum
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:28PM
This report is pretty stunning, even by CNN standards. (Via Hot Air).
Strategic Folly
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:08PM
Sergio Rodriguera Jr. at PajamasMedia is quick to say that conservatives shouldn't simply be upset about Obama's economic policies. Just look at the disaster of a foreign tour he just went on:
The highlight of the president's Afghanistan strategy is the economic aid package of $1.5 billion a year for five years. Again, no oversight is given to our taxpayer dollars handed over to a Pakistani government on the verge of collapse. The president assembled his key national security advisers - his best and brightest - and this is the best they can come up with?
He never discussed an effective counterinsurgency effort against the Taliban. He never mentioned that the Taliban in Pakistan, run by Behtullah Mehsud (more brutal than Mullah Omar's Afghanistan Taliban), has called for attacks against our country. He makes no reference to the Taliban and al-Qaeda attacking our supply lines throughout the Torkham Gate between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Vice President Biden has said we are in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda yet he renounces fighting the Taliban, suggesting that these two things are reconcilable. He recently said on CNN that only 5% of the Taliban are extremists and 70% are persuadable. As usual, the media forgot to ask him where he got these numbers and what Taliban he was referring to.
I'd say that 70% are pretending to be persuadable, but are just being coy.
It's disturbing. While we're enjoying the popularity abroad by virtue of a new administration, that'll wear off as soon as we start having to make hard decisions. And it seems, based on responses to big threats, we're not yet taking those hard decisions seriously.
Read more from Sergio here.
That Didn't Take Long - More Numbers
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 4:06PM
Here are the tea party reports I have so far:
Sandy Bourne (apparently a fast flyer) of the Heartland Institute reports:
DC 2000 -3700
Chicago 4000
Annapolis 1000
Former Michigan state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, who challenged Sen. Carl Levin in the fall, reports from Lansing:
Official estimate will come in soon, but I would say easily, 2500. Joe the Plumber was there.
The Locke Foundation's Chad Adams checks in from lil' ol' Lincolnton, NC, with an estimate of 250.
Andrew Breitbart says "at least 2,000 in Orange County, CA."
Adam Cahn reports from Austin, Texas:
Official Police Estimate: 1500.
From my perspective, it seemed closer to 2000-2500.
There's another one scheduled for later this afternoon.
Seattle talk radio host John Carlson estimates:
5000+ in Olympia, the state capitol here in Washington. There were 35 tea parties throughout the State today. Nothing like it ever before, and I've lived here since 1961.
Mtpolitics blogger
Craig Sprout estimates 250-300 in Helena, but says "I'm
probably
lowballing it."
Blogger Rossputin says from Denver:
About 2,500 I'd say, though some police officers estimated more.
Indeed they did, as Ben DeGrow reports:
I just got back from the rally in Denver - Turnout was huge! The Denver Post says 5,000, and I'm hard-pressed to disagree with that estimate. Amazing!
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12147073
Denver friend Dave Bufalo confirms:
Just got back from Denver's tea party. I'd estimate about 4,000 to 5,000 in attendance.... Lots of horn honking as cars drove by.
Rick Adams in Colorado Springs says:
I estimate at LEAST 2,000 showed up at Acacia Park, I'm sure it's more.
And he was kind enough to send a couple of pictures taken with his cameraphone.
Whew -- let me post this and catch my breath!
Intern-al Pride
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 3:53PM
I can't emphasize enough that AmSpec tries its best to cram as many interns into the office as possible because we really value the opportunity to help people coming through the pipeline. It's all the more encouraging when people who have interned with us go on to do impressive things.
So it's with a certain amount of pride I can say that summer 08 intern Emily Esfahani-Smith will be a Bartley fellow at the Wall Street Journal following her graduation from Dartmouth College. This fellowship is a really solid opportunity, and will undoubtedly launch Emily's career. We're just glad we were around before Emily became a big deal.
That said, I'd be remiss not to mention that Jillian Kay Melchior is another recipient, and though she hasn't interned with AmSpec, we consider her a good friend and proud of the association as well.
For those that haven't, applied for an AmSpec internship. We have them in the fall, spring, summer, and winter, and we're very flexible. It's just important that we have talented people come on board so we can get some work done.
Early Tea Party Numbers
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 3:47PM
My former co-workers at the John Locke Foundation (where I still rent a desk) have fanned out across North Carolina to attend several of the taxpayer tea parties in cities both large and small, and of the ones held so far (some, like Raleigh's, are tonight), here are the estimated attendance numbers they've reported:
Greensboro: 1,000-1,200
Charlotte: 700-1,000
Fayetteville: 300
If anyone (in any state) wants to report some of their numbers to climatestrategieswatch@gmail.com, I will do my best to post them at AmSpecBlog as I am able.
Our Nation's Salvation: Her Sovereign Citizens
4.15.09 @ 3:24PM
As a rock aficionado, U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI-11) might appreciate our reliance on a bootlegged transcript of remarks he's delivering at today's Tea Party rally at Kellog Park in Plymouth, Michigan:
From the G-20 summit in England to factories in France to the streets of our nation, we live amid a chaotic age. Thus, we peaceably assemble to stop the chaos and its consequences.
Emulating the misfeasance and failure of the "too big to fail" financial institutions that, in fact, did, Washington is replacing the "housing bubble" with a "government bubble" that will burst with disastrous impact upon our prosperity and our liberty.
Right now -- spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much, the government is putting a debt of trillions on our children's backs to erect a castle upon quicksand. Yet one cannot build a stable economy on government spending, because big government doesn't stop chaos. Big government is chaos.
We must reject this reckless road to serfdom and stagnation -- and today we do!
For our efforts, we have already and will continually be mocked and attacked. But we accept this small sacrifice for our children's future in a free republic.
Such is our duty in these tumultuous times, and we meet it by reaffirming to Washington and the world that, though we "cling" to nothing, we do embrace our cherished nation and her five truths for American renewal:
Our liberty is from God not the government;
Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soil;
Our security is through strength not surrender;
Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector; and
Our truths are self-evident not relative.Renewed by these truths despite the times, we know in our hearts that our nation's salvation remains her sovereign citizens -- and it is they, not the state, that will ensure our cherished sanctuary of liberty remains inspired and guided by the virtuous genius of her free people; and forever blessed by the unfathomable grace of God.
Thank you.
For more on McCotter's day, go here.
Conservative Leaders' Statement on Tax Day
4.15.09 @ 2:43PM
As federal income taxes come due, a group of conservative leaders issued the following statement:
Hard working Americans around the country on this April 15th will dig deep into their pocketbooks to pay the taxes liberal Democrats need to fund their massive spending programs. This soaring tax and spend burden will cripple American taxpayers, stagnate the economy for years and stifle any real long term economic growth and stability. While tens of thousands of taxpayers in cities across America will stage tea parties to protest the excessive burden of federal taxes, the reality is that free spending liberals on Capitol Hill have already guaranteed years more of punitive taxes by passing enormous and wasteful spending bills that will saddle massive debt upon the next two generations of Americans. .
President Obama has made a mockery of his campaign pledge to provide a net spending cut. His promised net tax cut will be the next to fall by the wayside, because although taxpayers will pay through the nose this April 15th, every man, woman and child in America will still owe the government $184,000 -- the per capita share of the national debt. And that is before the Obama stimulus and bailouts, and the 2010 budget are added in.
· On April 15th, all across America, citizens will turn out to protest the federal government's out-of-control spending by holding thousands of tea parties. This grassroots effort speaks volumes about the government's encroachment on citizens' freedom as well as their wallets.
· The liberals in Congress have proven to be enablers of the president's spending program, passing hugely wasteful programs like the stimulus and bailouts. Just one insurance company, the infamous AIG, for example, has received over $170 billion in bailout money (or over $2,000 for every family in the country), with over $10 billion of that going to foreign banks. Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York told what he called the "chattering class" that "the American people don't really care" about earmarks that will cost them $8 billion. They do care, and the tea parties prove it.
· President Obama also broke his pledge not to increase the taxes of anyone earning under $250,000 per year. Already the federal government has increased taxes on tobacco products and tobacco companies, and has proposed new taxes on energy, small business, capital gains and dividends, charitable giving, and the death tax, as well as an energy producer tax.
· At the state level, 10 states have already increased income taxes or plan to do so, and states across the country are raising or adding utility taxes, fishing licenses, parking tickets, gas taxes, and sales taxes.
There is no justification for the countless billions that citizens will have to pony up this tax season to fund liberalism’s reckless abuse of the federal treasury. At exactly the time when working families could use a break, the Obama regime and the liberal Democrats in Washington and state capitals are burdening them into a future of even more onerous tax days. We encourage all taxpayers to join the participants of the tea parties in telling big government that they have had enough unconscionable spending from Washington.
This statement was issued by:
Edwin Meese, former Attorney General
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform
Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America
Alfred S. Regnery, Publisher of The American Spectator
Becky Norton Dunlop, President of the Council for National Policy
Scenes from the DC Tea Party
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 1:51PM
These were all taken at Lafayette Park, across from the White House, around noon. Several thousand people* came out, as the rain poured down.
*UPDATE: I see there's a debate over crowd estimates. Unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure, as there is no entity making an official estimate and people came and went over a several-hour period. I estimated several thousand based on comparable crowd sizes at events I attended during the presidential campaign season, but if somebody makes a compelling argument for why I'm wrong, then I'd be happy to note that. My intention wasn't to purposely exaggerate the turnout. The photos above aren't very indicative of the size of the crowd, because they were taken in the portions of the park that were less densely populated, thus allowing me to easily roam around. That would not have been possible closer to the stage, where people were tightly packed together. Also, people were spread out all over the park, in all directions around the stage. I tried to get an overhead photo that would have conveyed a better sense of the crowd size, but I was unable to get to a high enough vantage point.
I Sniffed Marc Cooper's Column
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 10:52AM
I sniffed Marc Cooper's column today in the LA Times and found it can be described in the immortal words of Cheech and Chong: "Hmm... smells like dog $h!t.... Hmm.... TASTES like dog $h!t."
Why the sniffing analogy? Because here is how this stuck-up prig starts his insulting column: "The Web is buzzing with information about how to throw an anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Party, something organizers hope will be held today from Santa Monica to South Carolina. But no need to burn up your bandwidth reading complicated instructions. Here's a simpler recipe: Go to a hobby store. Buy a scale model of a U.N. One-World-Government Black Helicopter and a tube of glue. Toss the model kit. Sniff the entire tube of glue. You're all set for the party."
Well, sniff this, Marc: We have no glue, and you have no clue. Cooper says the tea parties amount to "collective insanity" because federal revenues right now are historically low, so obviously taxes aren't too high. He accurately notes, however, that organizers say "the Tea Party movement began in reaction to President Obama's corporate bailouts and ensuing yawning budget deficits." But this supercilious peckinsniff still can't put two and two together. The point is that the "yawning budget deficits" will absolutely force HUGE tax hikes later on -- yes, for us and for our children and grandchildren -- and so the bailouts and "stimulus" orgies actually do amount to an immense tax hike without any Obamite admission thereof.
Cooper also just lies by writing this: "These same conservatives, however, were mum when George W. Bush erased our budget surplus and put us deep in the red." Uh, hello, Mr. Cooper, when did you evr come out of your ivory tower for the past six years to actually deign to listen to conservatives? If you had, you would have seen that "these same conservatives" were anything but mum about George Bush's spending. Most conservatives fought Bush and complained bitterly about his spending. No, we didn't go as far as to throw tea party protests -- but that's because even Bush's exorbitant spending didn't even come close to the obscene levels of today's Obamite-fascist economics. Finally, the tea parties protest not specifically against Obama so much as they protest against the entire Washington spending-and-corporatist establishment. If Cooper can't understand that, then his brain clearly is all sniffed out.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 10:17AM
- Robert Schiller takes to the pages of Bloomberg to promote fiscal stimulus
- A public option health care plan wouldn't be cheap at all (Weekly Standard)
- The tax code: "the crisis has arrived" (New Majority)
- Gorbachev didn't fall; he was pushed (Foreign Policy)
- An error in complacency on North Korea (The New Republic)
Toomey Makes it Official
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 9:21AM
Pat Toomey announced this morning that he plans to challenge Arlen Specter for the U.S. Senate. In a statement, Toomey said:
“America is at a crossroads. We can continue down a path of massively expanding the federal government - which began under President Bush and is now growing at historic levels under President Obama - or we can change directions.
We can stop the bailouts and the spending stampede; we can reduce the burdens on taxpayers; and we can unlock the ingenuity and job creation potential of our great nation once again. I am running for the U.S. Senate because I believe the economic stakes for our country have never been higher. The people of Pennsylvania deserve the very best from their leaders in Washington – but that’s not what they are receiving...”
“For thirty years Senator Specter has consistently voted for increased government spending and a liberal agenda on social, labor, immigration and national security policies. In recent months, Senator Specter voted in favor of the unprecedented Wall Street and auto company bailouts and the massive “stimulus” spending bill. Senator Specter is on the wrong side of these critical issues and Pennsylvanians will pay the price.
If Pennsylvania’s senior senator stood up for taxpayers and job creation - instead of routinely voting against taxpayer interests - I would feel less compelled to run. Unfortunately, he does not.
Pennsylvanians deserve a voice in the U.S. Senate that will honor our values and fight for limited government, individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. I will be that voice.”
Spokesmanship is Bliss
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 9:02AM
Several outlets have now picked up on Spanish economic professor Dr. Gabriel Calzada's study of the economic impacts of Spain's "green jobs" schemes touted by President Obama as our model to follow.
Yesterday Fox News Channel (America's Newsroom, Special Report), Fox Business and Michelle Malkin joined the Economist, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and numerous EU outlets to note the analysis showing that Spain's artificially created, propped up and now bubble-bursting, therefore jobs-hemorrhaging renewables industry kills more than twice as many jobs elsewhere in the economy that didn't require full-time state support.
So the White House was asked about it and, in response, spokesman Robert Gibbs merely afforded more fodder to certain radio hosts who have found much joy in his deep thinking (enjoy the punch line):
Q Back on the President's speech today, a Spanish professor, Gabriel [Calzada] Álvarez, says after conducting a study, that in his country, creating green jobs has actually cost more jobs than it has led to: 2.2 jobs lost, he says, for every job created. And he has issued a report that specifically warns the President not to try and follow Spain's example.
MR. GIBBS: It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case.
Q Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?
MR. GIBBS: I haven't read the study, but I think, yes.
Q Well, then. (Laughter.)
That of course is equal parts non sequitor and nonsensical as shown by the study's authors, who sent me their piquant response:
If in order to sell turbine parts to another country you have to create a bubble in a whole sector and put massive subsidizes that account for $771,000 per green job, you might wonder whether selling those turbine parts is a good idea at all, since those resources could have been used to create other more valuable goods or parts that would better satisfy consumer wants as well as create twice as many jobs in the rest of the economy (in the sector from where those resources have been taken away).
The White House spokesman should read academic studies before ruling out its conclusions with no knowledge of them; this is especially true when his government is considering spending billions of US taxpayer dollars on uncertain experiments supported by subsidies that in Spain, after more than 10 years following this path, have produced highly disappointing results, even from a gross job creation perspective.
Or (Calzada accepts this translation):
What "seems weird" is that the U.S. would need subsidies and mandates to artificially create "demand for renewables" if the study weren't true?
Given that knowledge tends to trump ignorance, I suggest that this one goes to the Europeans. The issue now is whether the White House can continue to simply profess lack of inquiry into or curiosity about the costs which their utopianism inflicts on the economy.
Tancredo Shut Down
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 8:21AM
Advocates against free speech shut down an event at the University of North Carolina last night in which Rep. Tom Tancredo was to speak against providing in-state college tuition to unauthorized immigrants. The News & Observer of Raleigh reports:
Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.
Tancredo said it was the first time he'd ever had one of his speeches ended by protesters, who were actually threatening him:
About 200 protesters reconvened outside the building. "We shut him down; no racists in our town," they shouted. "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!"
Update 9:10 a.m.: Some added perspective after reading Michelle Malkin's column today about that report from the Dept. of Homeland Security that warns about right-wing radicalism turning violent:
Moreover, the report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over "disgruntled military veterans" -- a citation that gives us valuable insight into how DHS will define "hate-oriented" groups. The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a "hate group" for its stance on immigration enforcement. The report offers zero data, but states with an almost resentful attitude toward protected free speech: "Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."
The radicals at UNC did turn violent and threatening last night. Is DHS assuring us that they are watching these radicals? Are they locked up this morning?
Update II 9:30 a.m.: Video of the event is posted at YouTube by someone from ALIPAC. It appears the campus police were pretty cowardly in failing to clear the room (which surprised me in that it looks pretty small) of the disrupters. Instead they just put an end to Tancredo's talk.
The Case Against Demjanjuk and Buchanan
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 8:00AM
My post on Pat Buchanan's vile defense of Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk has generated a number of responses from those who agree with Buchanan that there isn't much evidence against Demjanjuk. (One commenter even decried "hysteria about the Holocaust.")
For those who remain unconvinced, I suggest you take a look at the 2002 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Paul R. Matia, which stood up on appeal. It contains 294 findings of fact detailing the documentary evidence that placed Demjanjuk as a guard at several Nazi concentration camps, including the Sobibor death camp.
Among the evidence presented was an identity pass issued to a person who, like Demjanjuk, was former soldier in the Soviet Army who was captured and trained by the Nazis to serve as a guard. The person in the identity pass bears a striking resemblance to Demjanjuk, shares his name, exact birth date and birthplace, father's name, hair and eye color. Below, I've posted an image of the pass, as well as a close up of the Nazi ID photo placed next to a 2006 photo of Demjanjuk, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
(For a larger version of this image, click here.)
Additional documents (such as a disciplinary report, rosters, and logs) placed the person appearing in the identity pass as a guard at the Majdanek, Flossenburg and Sobibor camps.
Judge Matia noted that the "guards assigned to Sobibor met arriving transports of Jews, forcibly unloaded the Jews from the trains, compelled them to disrobe, and drove them into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide… In serving at Sobibor, Defendant contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered…"
Furthermore, evidence presented by prosecutors, along with Demjanjuk's inconsistent explanations, led the judge to determine that Demjanjuk "misrepresented and concealed his wartime residences for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States…"
Judge Matia concluded:
The government had the burden of proving its contention to the Court by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. It did so. Although the Court carefully considered the evidence submitted by defendant to attempt to keep the government from satisfying its burden, the defendant's evidence was not sufficiently credible to cast doubt on the documentary evidence.
The decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2004, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year.
It's bad enough that Buchanan is rising to defend Demjanjuk, but his column is an example of classic Jew-baiting. He attempts to paint contemporary Jews as hypocrites by referring to Demjanjuk as an "American Dreyfus," a reference to the to the high-profile case of anti-Semitism and injustice. This is the typical, "see, Jews aren't victims, they're persecutors," tactic routinely employed by anti-Semites.
Then Buchanan concluded his column by comparing Demjanjuk to Jesus Christ, and invoking the old anti-Semitic smear of Jews as "Christ killers."
Buchanan wrote:
The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.
I can't exactly say this surprises me, but Buchanan really reached a new low with this effort.
Let Them Watch Swan Lake
Posted by on 4.15.09 @ 7:23AM
I don't want to sound too comfortable swilling moonshine from my clay jug, but a press release announcing stimulus funds going toward the arts makes me feel a touch queasy:
Underscoring this sentiment, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocates $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts. As arts organizations are threatened by declines in donations, the stimulus money will provide grants to fund projects that keep jobs in the nonprofit arts sector. Some 40 percent of the money will be distributed to state arts agencies and regional arts organizations, and 60 percent will be in competitive grants.
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR AMAZING PRODUCTION OF SWAN LAKE ENOUGH TO FORCE POOR PEOPLE TO FUND IT.
The argument goes that we all ought to recognize "the value arts and culture bring to a number of policy goals from economic development and rural and urban revitalization, to education reform and youth development."
And yet all of those are in peril because the status quo is about to change: "...States invest $343 million in state arts agencies, according to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Now as states tighten budgets and cut back spending, arts organizations can suffer."
Want to know why? Because that money gets taken from people and put into the arts agencies. If you want to spur an economy, you let the people use their money to build businesses. You don't hand it to a group of thespians working on interactive social justice theater.
And I'd link the press release, but it's still not up on their website despite the clear and present danger of losing really good opera.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Ah, Academia…
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 8:37PM
This clip, which some American Spectator readers may have already seen, is not a joke or a parody, but rather a video produced by Penn State's Office of Student Affairs in apparent coordination with the school's president, Graham Spanier.
As one of the actors in the clip says, this is not easy to deal with...
A little more information here.
Snarky Bespectacled Me
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 5:16PM
The wide angle lens allows my gesticulation to look, well, monstrous, but in this video I do announce my candidacy for 2020 on a platform based entirely on ninja turtles to fight the North Korean threat. Whatever it will look like in 2020.
The Right Idea Ep. 5 - Foreign
Policy from The
Winston Group on Vimeo
Re: National GOP to Back Specter
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 5:14PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cornyn now should do what Cheney told Leahy to do.
It is long past time for the national committees to stay out of direct involvement in primary battles. And why does it always seem that the committees work AGAINST the more conservative candidates?
Cornyn has been Beltwayed. Another one bites the dust. Again, he ought to go Leahy himself. Somebody, please quote me on this.
National GOP to Back Specter
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 4:28PM
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn has thrown his weight behind Sen. Arlen Specter, who is likely to face a tough renomination fight against former Club for Growth President Pat Toomey:
"My job as head of the NRSC is to guide the GOP back to a majority in the Senate," wrote Cornyn to Pennsylvania Republicans. "I can't do that without Arlen Specter. With him as our nominee, I can target our campaign resources toward beating Democrats and growing the Senate Republican Conference."
National Republican support -- especially from President Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum -- was key to Specter's defeat of Toomey in 2004. But since then, the Republican base has gotten smaller and the remaining conservatives may have had their fill of Specter.
You Shall Know Our Ignorance!
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 4:17PM
My sometime sparring partner, seated safely in his new timeslot, takes a long segment to discuss how the tea party "movement" was really started by Fox News, Dick Armey, and Newt Gingrich, and then uses these strawmen to criticize just how non-grassroots this stuff all is. To provide him with a bit of unbiased cover, he interviews a Huffington Post columnist who also clucks about the insidious nature of these "so-called" protests. Obviously.
Click here for the video which refuses to embed.
We hope you enjoyed the heavily-sophomoric and euphemism-laden script Shuster was working with. You see, the protesters are idiots for referring to a historically recognizable protest, because it could easily be mistaken for the Urban Dictionary no-no word describing a lewd sexual act. But when Shuster and his chums at HuffPo gurgle the word themselves, it's because they're being meta. In a race to the bottom, Shuster and Co are tunneling.
Well, as the lead organizer of the February 27th Washington tea party event, I'll happily tell you that I got no such support. None. Nada. Zilch. The support we got from Fox News? Does that mean coverage? I wasn't aware covering a nationwide event was a cardinal sin. My thinking was that when anyone in power does something controversial, you show the response. The response was thousands of protesters nationwide. Is Shuster suggesting that this not get covered? Where does that figure into the whole "speak truth to power" thing? And also, contrary to what David says, the protests aren't a Republican phenomenon. We certainly knocked GWB around during the Washington event -- quite a bit, and to boos and hisses at the mere mention of his name -- because the Republican Party was hardly principled when it came to letting the economy take care of itself.
Frankly, when you get a bunch of people to attend a protest who've never done that sort of thing before, it's fairly newsworthy. I don't even much care for protests -- which may be ironic, but I'm willing to bet that many of the attendees feel the same way. We have better things to do with our time.
At a time, however, when people are saying that those in favor of limited government are in shambles, these people are organizing. And they're doing it themselves. There was no grand conspiracy underlying a bunch of people on Twitter going, "Hey, how do you hold a protest where I am?" It was genuine. Some people were some-time activists but worked in the private sector. Others were conservatives with jobs at non-profits. Others were just people who wanted to be involved.
But if Shuster did the reporting he should have been doing, he would have spoken to the people in attendance and found regular small-business owners upset that their tax money is being used to bail out bad companies.
And by the way, just how literal-minded are these people that they're whining about how these protests aren't perfectly parallel to the Boston Tea Party? We should just reanimate the moccasined corpse of Samuel Adams himself. And if he happens to go on a brain-eating rampage, we'll all know to blame it on our own foul-language ridden, Fox News-supported, teabagging scam.
Buchanan Unleashes Anti-Semites With Latest Disgusting Tirade
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 3:06PM
Pat Buchanan uses this week's column (titled "The True Haters") to defend Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk, who is being sent back to Germany to face charges he was partially responsible for killing 29,000 Jews. While Demjanjuk had been previously exonerated from charges that he was responsible for the murder of Jews at Treblinka, in 2002 a federal judge ruled that he was a willing Nazi guard at the Sobibor, Majdanek and Flossenburg camps, and was part of the process in which thousands of Jews were murdered at Sobibor. This ruling was upheld by an U.S. appeals court in 2004. It shouldn't matter if Demjanjuk is 89 and ill, there should be no sanctuary, and no statute of limitations on exacting justice on Nazi war criminals. Buchanan's defense of him is simply vile, but the responses to his column in the Human Events comments thread go further.
For instance, from Jeff Mazak of Buffalo, New York:
Very good again Pat, your voice is not only a voice of reason, it is also a courageous voice for our time....
OSI is an aberration of American justice and is run by rogue, arrogant and hateful Jewish lawyers...
Or "Mark" from Ohio:
The Jews have a history in trumped up charges and hangings. And in ignorance Christians think they get some free pass located in the Old Testament.
Ed from Tennessee (responding to Mark):
BINGO, and it needs to be said over and over again. I don't know what's up with the Evangelicals, but they seem to be selectively reading their Bibles.
The Son of God called 'them' the offspring of the Devil, didn't He?
Carl LaFong of Waikiki:
The OSI is very much like what William E. Winterstein author of "GESTAPO USA" describes in his book - "a gaggle of traitors and Jewish zealots posing as lawyers for American justice."
"seejay" chimes in with some Holocaust denial:
It kinda make one understand the anger of the anti-Zionists.
I mean, there's no ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that Treblinka was anything more than a transit camp; There is NO EVIDENCE that ANYONE EVER was "holocausted" at Treblinka., yet we allow them to drag this old man into a COURTROOM, and then pretend that we abide by the Rule of Law!
It's time to open "The Holocaust" up for historical inquiry. Too many decent people have suffered because of this questionable horror-story!
Landslide Christie
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 2:44PM
I so often disagree with posts at the New Majority I might as well highlight one I think is basically on the mark. But I must say I'm always amused when someone holds up Christine Todd Whitman as an example of how Republicans can succeed. Whitman's claim to fame is losing a 1990 Senate race against Bill Bradley by a smaller margin than expected, winning the 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial race by one percentage point, and beating Jim McGreevey to win re-election by 47 percent to 46 percent -- again, a single percentage point. She never carried the women's vote and Republicans haven't won the governorship since. That only looks like an impressive track record if you've spent too much time hanging around the 2008 McCain campaign.
McDonald's: Another Onion Prediction Fulfilled
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 2:18PM
Once again, reality follows The Onion. This time it involves one horrifying McDonald's.
Rightwing Extremist With a Banjo On My Knee
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 1:44PM
The Washington Times and Michelle Malkin have confirmed the authenticity of the DHS report smearing most conservatives as "Rightwing Extremists." So now I guess it's safe to confess that I have read that notorious extremist tract, the U.S. Constitution.
Also, the "right-wing billionaires" are paying me to go to Alabama for Wednesday's Tea Party protest. Between the billionaires and the extremists, folks down home are expecting a pretty good turnout.
Yes We Canned
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 11:06AM
Perhaps you've been wondering what all the recently laid off journalists and editors have been doing with their down time? Well, wonder no more!
The Regime of Foreign Law
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 10:11AM
Not to be an alarmist, but our very identity as self-governing Americans is very much at risk from the growing "transnationalist" movement that would apply foreign law to domestic situations or to American citizens. My Examiner column today explains. It follows upon our Examiner editorial on Sunday that takes issues with the nomination of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh to be chief counsel at the State Department. The person who has done almost certainly the most thorough job outlining the powerful case against Koh is Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writing at NRO's Bench Memos. (Be sure to follow the internal links at the bottom of that linked post!)
Also good at NRO on these topics have been Matthew Frank and Andy McCarthy. Also good elsewhere have been Heritage's Steven Groves and the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney (sorry -- not enough time to dig up all the rest of the links).
Of course, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer have been particularly outspoken about their support for citations of foreign law in U.S. cases. This is bad stuff.
It must be acknowledged that the new Spanish inquisition I described in my column involves a slightly different issue than that being pushed by Ginsburg and Breyer. But it's all of the same general cut of cloth. Conservatives need to fight this trend for all we're worth.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 10:03AM
- Title IX for science is a great idea unless you care about science (Washington Post)
- More reasons to hate the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage (Reason)
- Useful right-wing idiots (New Majority)
- A crunchy-con interview with Maggie Gallagher (Crunchy Con)
- Bachus on the hunt (Politico)
Fighting Franken
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 9:44AM
On the main site, Matthew Vadum makes the case for Norm Coleman continuing to fight on, but place me in the Scott Johnson camp in thinking that Franken did not steal the election. In an election this close, there is simply no way to know beyond doubt who really won, the losing side will always feel jilted, and there are always enough irregularities to give comfort to those who are looking for evidence of cheating. The thought of the obnoxious Franken being a U.S. Senator is nauseating to me, but objectively speaking, I think the election and recount was a fair and open process. It doesn't help Coleman's credibility that when he was ahead, he and his representatives were making the exact opposite arguments as when he was behind -- on whether the process was fair, on whether certain ballots should be counted, and on whether the trailing candidate should concede. In these situations, it's like a contoversial call at the end of a crucial playoff game. The fans of the losing team may argue that they were screwed, but that's why you don't want to be in a position in which one call by the referee could determine the outcome of the game. Similarly, if Coleman didn't run a poor campaign and squander a lead that was once in the double digits, he wouldn't have had to worry about whether a shift in a few hundred votes would determine the outcome of the election.
Is Obama a Liar?
Posted by on 4.14.09 @ 9:12AM
When I wrote Red Hot Lies, I backed up the claim with specifics and evidence. Sadly if typically, a new talking point has emerged among the cap-n-trade cheerleading Left - which as I showed at two town hall meetings with Rep. Michele Bachmann last Thursday excludes the non-financially vested Left, to their credit.
At both meetings the press - whose penetrating questions beforehand were restricted to "Who's paying for your trip out here?" (Bill McAuliffe, Minneapolis Star Tribune...it was that mean old Young America's Foundation...now, what did Gore tell you about who gave him $300 million, which is slightly more than my airfare?) - and the Alinskyites in the audience at one session clinged like grim death to a supposed life raft in the sea of red ink, "an MIT study on cap and trade" disputing certain cost estimates for such a scheme.
Today I see the Huffington Post repeats the claim that Rep. Bachmann was lying about the cost... without saying what the lie was, or otherwise backing up the language. Some person denies cost projections about a scheme designed to price energy out of current levels of use, somehow making anyone else who projects cost estimates a "liar", which is pushed as the take away point in coverage and public discourse.
OK, usual playground logic, ad hom and subject-changing, shocked shocked, and all that, but here's the test:
Is Barack Obama lying?
Numerous cost estimates, all projections of the future, are floating around about what a cap-and-trade bill would cost. It is a fool's errand to bother claiming to know which is most representative - one I lapsed into in q-n-a once, I admit, by offering a range of projections (and an audience member shouted "Lie!"...no, actually it's a range of projections). A principal reason this is a time-waster is that the Waxman-Markey bill, "the" game in town right now, cleverly avoided assigning specifics to their scheme, thereby ensuring all potential recipients of its rents will pant after the project in hopes that it is they whose beak gets wetted at the expense of the economy.
So, again, the question is whether the man pushing this scheme, the man whose political vanity or social engineering dreams it is to satisfy, is lying?
The only relevant estimate of cap-and-trade legislation is that it would cause your energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket".
That's Obama.
Hey, Left, stop changing the subject and answer the question: Is Obama Lying?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Slowly Down the Slippery Slope
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 3:57PM
"You never know what you'll encounter on your slow slide down the slippery slope, do you? From the Kinsey Report to the Pill to 'no-fault' divorce to abortion to 'don't ask, don't tell,' to pro-pedophile academia to women in combat to the 16-year-old sex-change -- the general direction of the slide is clear, but the next milestone is always a surprise."
Harold Ford, Jr. Makes It Official
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 3:09PM
He won't be running for governor of Tennessee. Although an attractive African-American centrist, Ford was the only Democrat to lose a close Senate race in the Democratic sweep year of 2006. He has since been connected with the Democratic Leadership Council. A.C. Kleinheider asks: "Are there any more candidates on the Democratic side who were waiting for the official no from Junior? Will this announcement cause some candidates to ramp up activity? Or is it just status quo?"
About Obama's Immigration Push
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 2:31PM
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is the Obama administration insider who is often quoted as saying that immigration will be kept off the table until the president is safely re-elected. So it is significant that the Wall Street Journal reported late last week that Emanuel now supports action (though the story leaves it up in the air whether Emanuel's views have actually changed or whether Obama is vetoing them). How real this shift is will say a lot about how serious Obama's efforts at overhauling immigration will be.
Fighting the Pirates
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 12:53PM
In the wake of the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips, the debate continues over what to do about the pirate threat. Occasional Spectator contributor Fred Iklé takes to the Washington Post today to argue for ships to simply arm themselves and kill any pirates that try to board the ship, in the name of self defense, while other reports indicate that the U.S. military is considering striking the pirates' land bases. Personally, I'm open to the idea that limited military action can be justified, but I question whether the threat of piracy has risen to the level whereby such strikes are currently necessary. So, I'd be more inclined at this moment to support the first option. At least for now.
'Right-Wing Billionaires' and 'Rightwing Extremists'
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 12:45PM
Speaking as an old newspaper editor, I mainly wish they would make up their minds whether it's hyphenated or not, but either way, the right wing is making news today.
First, your tax dollars at work: Stephen Gordon has obtained a new Department of Homeland Security report provocatively entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
The DHS report describes as potential terrorists those who "are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." This is a conspiracy so immense, one witty fellow observed, as to involve Mark Krikorian, David Boaz, Antonin Scalia, and just about everyone who didn't vote for Obama in November.
These extremists are wealthy beyond your wildest imagination, according to Paul Krugman, who sees "the usual group of right-wing billionaires" orchestrating the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protests Wednesday.
Echoing the "JournoList-approved Meme of the Week," Krugman names Dick Armey and Fox News as the fiendish right-wingers bankrolling this scheme, which is kind of a surprise to me. I'm driving down to Alabama for the big Birmingham-area Tea Party at Veterans Park in Hoover, Ala., and so far that fat check from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy HQ hasn't arrived in my mailbox.
This apparent lack of coordination between the "right-wing billionaires" and the "Rightwing Extremists" probably explains why they can't agree on that hyphen.
DailyKos Kook Attacks Heroic Capt. Phillips
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 12:22PM
You have to wonder what is running through the minds of some of the kooks at the extreme-left DailyKos website.
Amazingly, one America-hating Kossack who goes by the handle "KLS" actually denounced rescued Maersk Alabama Captain Richard Phillips for "recklessly put[ting] himself, the crew, and the Navy Seals at unnecessary risk." In a piece that was spotlighted at RealClearPolitics, KLS wrote:
The pirates' modus operandi is that they hold the crew, ship, and cargo harmlessly until a lot of money is paid to them. Phillips "heroic" actions put his crew and himself at risk. If he'd done nothing except acquiesce to the pirates' demands, there would have been no risk, just possible discomfort until the extortion money was paid. Instead he put himself and the Seals at grave risk.
I applaud the crew, the Seals, and the military chain of command for their actions. I think Phillips was in error--if not a grandstander, then greatly misguided. Does anyone know what Maersk's orders to Phillips and the other Maersk masters are in a piracy matter? Probably to do nothing to incite trouble and to notify the shipowner and the U.S. Navy. The captain works for the shipowner and must follow those orders. The master who fails to follow the shipowner's orders is guilty of the crime of barratry if a financial injury to the shipowner results.
The actual result is that Maersk, the shipowner, saved a lot of money that would have been lost with the ship inactive and off charter while it sat idle in a pirate port. Is this worth the deadly risk to the crew and the Seals? Not to me.
Of course KLS assumes that (i) he or she knows the standing orders that apply to the Maersk Alabama (ii) the pirates were honorable fair play-loving chaps who would not have harmed Phillips (iii) the ransom would have been paid, and (iv) with the ransom paid the pirates would have actually let Phillips go.
As Gateway Pundit notes, "Only on the left are heroes like Captain Phillips, who put his life in danger for the freedom of his men, called grandstanders."
In fairness, it appears the blog posts highlighted by DailyKos on its front page applaud Captain Phillips, so it's possible KLS does not speak for most Kossacks.
No Senator Jindal
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 12:01PM
John Heilemann of New York magazine told Chris Matthews that during a trip to New Orleans he'd heard that Bobby Jindal was going to abandon Louisiana's governorship to run against Sen. David Vitter in 2010: "He's got a terrible budget situation down there, he's thrown himself into a Republican primary up in Baton Rouge that he's going to apparently get creamed in. And I think what's interesting about it is that it tells you that he's got the message that 2012 isn't his year."
Whatever it says about 2012, Jindal consultant Curt Anderson got off a pretty good line in denying this rumor. According to the Washington Post: "It's a complete fabrication and very odd journalism at best. People from New York tend to consume a lot of alcohol when they are visiting New Orleans."
Indeed they do.
Not Wild About Harry
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 11:42AM
National and Nevada Republicans hope to mount a serious challenge to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010, in part as payback for the Democratic push to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in 2008. Nevada has been trending Democratic but most voters are still to the right of the liberal party's national agenda. Reid's approval ratings seldom move higher than the low 50s, making him a tempting target.
A Washington Times story today highlights all these facts and reports that Reid is beefing up his fundraising in anticipation of a serious challenge. The big question is who the GOP can get to take on Reid. The Times reports: "Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), says the party is courting a strong challenger, but he's not saying who that is." The unpopularity of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons threatens to drag the state GOP down in the next election cycle.
Reid last faced a tough race in 1998, when he beat Republican John Ensign by only 428 votes (a Libertarian tipped the balance). Ensign now holds Nevada's other Senate seat. Since their bruising contest 11 years ago, Reid has climbed the Democratic leadership ladder and moved to the left on a whole host of issues, particuarly immigration and abortion.But Reid spokesman Jim Manley insists: "Senator Reid's views are in sync with Nevada voters. He is pro-life, pro-gun, [anti-Yucca Mountain nuclear dump] and a strong champion of Nevada veterans and military bases."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 9:59AM
- "A self-serving mirage" -- Obama's economic program (Washington Post)
- Outstanding: the same Ivy Leaguers who destroyed our economy now want to run the government (NY Times)
- Comparative presidential prayer (Weekly Standard)
- How to spin pro-life backlash? (Politico)
- Larry Summers fails to put his money where his mouth is (Daily Beast)
Chocola Replaces Toomey at Club for Growth
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 9:53AM
Pat Toomey took another step toward mounting a challenge to Arlen Specter in the U.S. Senate primary by giving up his position at Club for Growth "so he could pursue other opportunities." The group announced this morning that Chris Chocola, who served two terms as a congressman from Indiana before losing his seat as a victim of the 2006 Democratic tidal wave, has been chosen to replace Toomey, effective immediately.
Tendentious Bloggers, Tendentious Bloggers!
Posted by on 4.13.09 @ 9:22AM
Andrew Sullivan says that "the right refuses to give up its argumentative crutch" concerning the link between activist judges and same-sex marriage. I'm one of the crutch-using righties he cites, since I acknowledge that judges originally imposed de facto gay marriage on Vermont in the form of civil unions, a decision that definitely helped shift the politics of the issue within that state. Does Sullivan dispute either of these points?
You'd never know I'd written about the inadequacy of the judges argument and the way something like Vermont would change the debate not just last week, but for the last few years. I first wrote that the argument couldn't be confined to judicial activism shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's same-sex marriage decision in late 2003, as Sullivan recognized at the time. But at least he gave his readers the ability to click through the link and see that my post was actually titled "Gay Marriage, Without Judges."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Left's Coordinated Message Operation
Posted by on 4.12.09 @ 5:37PM
American Spectator readers are probably familiar with the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party rallies being planned for Wednesday. Readers may be less familiar with the attempt by left-wing propagandists (like Jane Hamsher) to dismiss the Tea Party movement as being ginned up by Fox News, "Corporate America" and the usual suspects of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. The transparent object of this propaganda effort by the Left is to discourage coverage for the Tea Party movement by their liberal friends in the mainstream media.
Speaking as an ex-Democrat, I can say that nothing creates more ex-Democrats than the habitual deceit practiced by the Left in its efforts to control the Democratic Party and to conceal those efforts from scrutiny. Eventually you discover the truth and the realization that you have been bamboozled makes you angry.
It is no coincidence (as a Marxist might say) that many of the staunchest and most effective opponents of the Left are people like David Horowitz, the "Red Diaper" son of Communist Party parents, raised within the Left. And it is worth remembering that Ronald Reagan was himself a self-described "bleeding heart" liberal (he actually joined two Commie front groups) before he was forced to confront the deceptive machinations of the Communist Party in its effort to take over Hollywood.
A few weeks ago, it was revealed that the Left has been manipulating the national news media via an online communication loop called "JournoList." As someone who follows political blogs closely, I had noticed how successful the Left was at (a) getting its favorite narratives picked up by the national media, and (b) discouraging coverage of narratives unfavorable to Democrats. Conservatives have long speculated on the role of back-channel communications between "progressive" activists and sympathetic journalists in this sort of coordinated messaging operation. The JournoList revelation exposed one of those back channels; that there are many others is easily inferred.
So you can imagine my reaction when I spotted Steve Benen of Washington Monthly pushing an anti-Tea Party message by Oliver Willis of Media Matters. Willis did a straight-up ad hominem attack, comparing the supposedly phony Tea Party protests to the authentic grassroots activism of the protests against the Iraq War.
Make. Me. Laugh. And now cue the army of anonymous leftoid trollbots in the comments.
- The Podhoretz Method
- Obama's Vision Through History
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire