Barack Hussein Works to Reassure Muslims Ahead of House Hearings on Homegrown Islamic Terrorism

Folks should be reading my friend Gary Fouse's blog, Fousesquawk. Gary teaches at UCI and his blog specializes in countering jihad on campus. Despite the backlash against Irvine's Muslim Student Association, the campus will once again hold Israeli Hate Week in May. I'm planning some coverage of that myself, which will augment my recent investigation into pro-terror Islamic radicalism at UCLA. It's never a dull moment with these thugs. Right here at home we have an anti-Semitic fifth column, and of course the White House is doing all it can to strengthen these forces and enable the progressive left's Islamization of America. At LAT, "White House seeks to reassure Muslims":

The White House took a preemptive step to defuse an emerging controversy Sunday, sending out a top aide to reassure American Muslims that the U.S. government doesn't see them as a collective threat.

Denis McDonough, deputy national security advisor to President Obama, addressed a largely Muslim audience days before congressional hearings into homegrown Islamic terrorism. The hearings, which sparked protests in New York on Sunday, will be led by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

In his speech to members of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, McDonough said, "The bottom line is this: When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem; you're part of the solution."

Earlier Sunday, King told CNN's "State of the Union" that Al Qaeda terrorists were "attempting to recruit within the United States. People in this country are being self-radicalized."

The Obama administration is clearly worried that the hearings, which begin Thursday, could open a rift with Muslim leaders, whose cooperation is needed to foil terrorist recruitment. A message from McDonough's speech was that the Muslim community is vital to a larger strategy of preventing the radicalization of American youths.

'They Won't Hold Up Well in Combat' — North Carolina Marines Voice Concerns on DADT Repeal

Actually, just a couple of dozen of 'em, but interesting nevertheless. At NYT, "Backing ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal, With Reservations":

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — Pfc. Daniel Carias, a Bronx native who is just weeks from graduating from Marine Corps infantry training at Camp Geiger near here, says he has known plenty of gay men since high school and feels completely comfortable around them.

He thinks Congress did the right thing in repealing the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, a policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But Private Carias, 18, has one major concern: gay men, he says, should not be allowed to serve in front-line combat units.

“They won’t hold up well in combat,” he said.

That view, or variations on it, was expressed repeatedly in interviews with Marines around this town, home to Camp Lejeune, and outside Camp Pendleton in Southern California on Sunday.

Most of the approximately two dozen Marines interviewed said they personally did not object to gay men or lesbians serving openly in the military. But many said that introducing the possibility of sexual tension into combat forces would be disruptive, an argument made by the commandant of the Marine Corps a week before the historic repeal was passed by the Senate on Saturday and sent to President Obama for his signature.

Many concerns — and possible solutions — are outlined in a Defense Department plan for carrying out the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Officials said they did not yet have a timetable for adopting the change. Under the terms of the legislation, the Defense Department will not carry out the repeal until Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, certify that the military is ready to make the change.

RTWT at the link.

Yeah, pfft, what do these guys know, right? It's an unrepresentative sample, of kids, really, mostly just out of high school.

By contrast, surely the editors at NYT know best, for example, at today's editorial, "At Long Last, Military Honor":

The Senate vote on Saturday afternoon to allow open service by gay and lesbian soldiers was one of the most important civil rights votes of our time. The ringing message of the decision to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law will carry far beyond its immediate practical implications. Saturday may be remembered as the day when sexual tolerance finally become bipartisan.

Sadly, the vast majority of Republicans remained on the benighted side of the party line. Senator John McCain disgraced his distinguished military career by flailing against the vote, claiming it would be celebrated only in liberal bastions like Georgetown salons. But to the surprise even of supporters of repeal, eight Republican senators broke with party orthodoxy and voted with virtually every Democrat to end the policy. Fifteen House Republicans did the same on Wednesday. By focusing on history and decency, they took a stand of which their states can be proud. Perhaps a new moral momentum may even help them erase the remaining traces of prejudice in public life, including Washington’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage.

Hmm... Actually the Pentagon's report was a bit more complicated that the editors let on. And interesting how we can see that DADT repeal will help "erase the last traces of prejudice" in American life. Well, no. We'd have to totally erase human nature to eliminate prejudice — but reason isn't the basis for the policy change. Politically correct emotionalism is.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory."

* "'Deal With It' — Straight Troops to Shower With Gays Under DADT Repeal."

* "Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — BUMPED AND UPDATED!"

And more from Stephanie Gutmann, at National Review, "Rhetoric on DADT Was Overblown."

My award for schmaltziest lede of the year goes to the New York Times for kvelling in an editorial yesterday that “More than 14,000 soldiers lost their jobs and their dignity over the last 17 years because they were gay, but there will be no more victims of this injustice.” Can we have a little reality here, please?

Via Memeorandum.

Nihilism and Progressivism

Bosch Fawstin illustrated my recent essay, "Navigating Past Nihilism," which is cross-posted to NewsReal Blog.

And now I'm re-reading Sean Kelly's original essay at New York Times, but this time in light of the left's response to my thoughts on Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God. Citing Nietzsche, Kelly suggests that those who have abandoned God are living in "self-deceit." The deceit is to hold out the possibility of the good life. The solution, suggested by Kelly, is to adopt an alternative set of commitments, as Melville would say, in a smaller, more local set of values. I don't doubt many could find a pleasing and satisfying life. But it would be materialistic and autonomously derived, i.e., without a greater nobility found in the eternal. This is, then, an inferior substitute to God. People would find meaning not in self-denial, abstinence, and penitence, but in engorgement on worldly pleasures. Spiffing this up in fancy sounding language won't do (these "many new possible and incommensurate meanings," for example). It's a jumble of nothingness in the end. Nothing higher to seek, and hence little to be attained. It's metaphor for progressivism. Excellence and attainment are for the selfish and greedy. And the response to that alleged greed is redistribution of wealth and the organization of society into hierarchies of recrimination. Appropriate ways of thinking are enforced. Truth is deemed hate speech, and expressions of faith are excoriated as theological fascism. Hence the response to my commentary on Elizabeth Edwards. It took a day or two, but just to speak out boldly for a vision of God in full awesomeness, God at our moment of complete and utter vulnerability, was just too much for the progressive nihilists. It's a rare thing, but shock-proof demons of the leftist netherworld were indeed shocked. The attacks followed. I was "Donald Dick" for refusing to embrace Elizabeth Edwards' non-belief. Another gleefully exclaimed that someone needed "to take a shot at Donald Douglas." And of course SEK blew his wad before he'd even consummated the information I'd posted. And upon receiving my response (linked to LGM), SEK proceeded to swiftly threaten death. It's always that way with progressives:

The Donalde, I am absolutely serious here: try to drive traffic to your shit site one more time on this thread and I will end you. Remember, before I taught composition, I taught journalism, and some of my former students are very, very intrepid.

So I’m only going to say this once: diminish the experience of cancer to a cancer survivor again and you’ll learn exactly how great of a teacher I am. That’s the deal: you be a fucking human being and allow that scoring points by writing “trending” instead of “dying” is a cheap tactic that makes you a terrible person, and no one I’ve taught will prove you’re a terrible person. This is your first and only warning.

I allow nothing short of indicating SEK's Stalinism.

I'll have more later, in any case.

Tucker Carlson on JournoList: 'Liberal Journalists Decided to Subvert the News'

On Hannity's:

And check all the coverage at The Daily Caller.

JournoList's Open Conspiracy

From Jonah Goldberg:

Many conservatives think JournoList is the smoking gun that proves not just liberal media bias (already well-established) but something far more elusive as well: the Sasquatch known as the Liberal Media Conspiracy.

I’m not so sure. In the 1930s, the New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin’s murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest. Just for the record, Ezra Klein was born in 1984.

In other words, JournoList is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the “open conspiracy” H. G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.

As James DeLong, a fellow at the Digital Society, correctly noted on the Enterprise Blog, “The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their employers for the cause of Progressivism.”

For a liberal activist, that’s forgivable, I guess. But academics? Reporters? Editors? Even liberal opinion writers aren’t supposed to “coordinate” their messages with the mother ship.

The conservative movement at least admits it is a movement (even though conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 in this country). Establishment liberalism, not just in the press but also in the White House, academia, and Hollywood, holds power by refusing to make the same concession. “This isn’t about ideology. . . . We just call them like we see them. . . . We don’t have an agenda.”

The open conspiracy that perpetuates that lie is far more pernicious than any chat room.

'Not All Journalists Are Jerks' — And Then There's JournoList

"Not All Journalists Are Jerks."

So says Jolie O'Dell: "Not All Bloggers Are Journalists":

In fact, I have to apologize on behalf of my entire profession for how you have been treated by a few bloggers, whom I’ll have the tact to not name here. There are bloggers who know and care nothing about real journalism, who see this profession as an opportunity for short-term gain at anyone’s expense, who find no joy in it and who dream only of fame in the now and a lucrative exit thereafter. These people are not journalists; they are self-serving scum. And they’ve royally fucked up how a lot of people see my profession.

Bold is in the original at the quote, but I want to highlight the last two sentences again, with reference to JournoList: "These people are not journalists; they are self-serving scum. And they’ve royally fucked up how a lot of people see my profession."

Checking back over at Ms. O'Dell's page we find: "How to Tell a Journalist from a Blogger," and this gem:

Objectivity is a word oft-repeated in journalistic circles. The journalist strives for this: Neutrality, freedom from bias, absolute truth, facts unsullied by emotion. We cannot settle for “both sides of the story.” We must tell all sides of the story, and we must represent each side fairly regardless of our individual beliefs and views.

Yeah. Right.

I wonder what planet Ms. O'Dell lives on? And this was written yesterday to boot. Maybe this journalist should actually look around and see the utter collapse of "objective" journalism before writing such complete bull. (And I write this not as a "blogger," but as a "political scientist," and by that I mean my professional title that allows me to stand on a freaking pedestal and make a damned fool out of myself as does Ms. O'Dell in her sublime idiocy of journalistic conceit.)

In any case, there's lots more on JournoList today. See, for example, "After JournoList Exposé, No One Better Ever Deny Liberal Media Bias Again." And, "Ousted official Shirley Sherrod blamed Fox, but other outlets ran with story" (via Memeorandum).

IMAGE CREDIT: Verum Serum, "Journolist: Japanese Tentacle PrOn Edition."

Glenn Greenwald's Absolute Tyranny

I've got a new anonymous commenter, "Suzie Q," who left a response to my entry this morning, "Obama Connects al Qaeda to Jet Plot, But Fails to Connect Global Jihad." Ms. Susie Q asks:

So, how many liberties are conservatives willing to surrender to big government?? Because the conservative position is not to surrender liberties to big government. However, mention "al Qaeda" - and conservatives do a flip flop. That's why the whole thing is such a flop in the first place to a real conservative ....

Actually, no, Susie Q. These "real" conservatives you mention are folks like Daniel Larison who purport to be conservatives while allying with the left in destroying the nation. Nope, there's really little difference between these "true" conservatives (with burning hatred of neocons) and hard left extremists. For example, Glenn Greenwald, a regular writer at the misnamed American Conservative, addresses this same point today, by coincidence, regarding how much liberty conservatives are willing to give up for security. Greenwald excoriates the right's "pathology of fear" as his post, "The Degrading Effects of Terrorism Fears." And while Greenwald is often credited by those on the right for a modicum of consistency (since he's now attacking the Obama administration), I give Greenwald nothing but scorn. A blowhard and windbag, even his legal "expertise" can't save him from this disastrous America-bashing screed:

This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents' bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

As Adams noted, political leaders possess an inherent interest in maximizing fear levels, as that is what maximizes their power ....

What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.

Now, as fancy as that sounds, it's pure leftist drivel -- which is why both radicals and "paleoconservatives" eat it up. Even a cursory understanding of the nation's founding rebuts this simplistic -- indeed, devious -- proposition that liberty ALWAYS supercedes security. No doubt one could search around and find quotes from the founding generation to back one's arguments, but few sources would be more authoritative than Alexander Hamilton, author of some of the most important essays of the Federalist Papers. Here's Hamilton outlining the powers of the executive as facilitating the presevation not just of liberty, but ultimately of security and national survival. From Federalist #71:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy ....

There are preconditions to both security and liberty, and thus Glenn Greenwald's absolutism is both wrong and immoral -- and certainly not conservative. (In fact, Greenwald and his allies are not unlike the extremists of France in 1792 who took absolute liberté to its ultimate solution of the gallows.) Not only do strong national instutions, in the case of a vigorous executive, serve the interests of basic survival, but they are even more fundamental to the classical political philosophy of constitutional governement. As John Locke understood, whose writing formed a leading theoretical foundation for our constitutional regime, the absence of order in the state of nature formed the chief threat to the rights and liberties of men. To create a state (a government with sovereign legal authority over its the people) was to enter into a contract for the preservation of society, and hence the acquistion of security. Locke even modifies the more aggressive social contract theories of folks like Thomas Hobbes. Without a "common power" in centralized government, no person's security can be safeguarded from both external and internal threats, and thus liberty would be purely extinguished as an artifact of the negation of freedom in the left's "progressive" tyranny.

Michael Moore: 'Capitalism is Evil'

Larry King gives Communist Michael Moore a soapbox (and at around 12:00 minutes Moore would make ANSWER proud with his comments on Afghanistan):

On healthcare, Moore might as well have been separated at birth from Paul Krugman, "The Defining Moment" (via Memeorandum):

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

Blah, Blah ...

G-20 Communists on Hannity: 'I Support the People-Run Redistribution of Wealth'

Well "Free the Planet," the organization claimed by the two young women speaking with Sean Hannity last night, must be pretty secret. Clicking freetheplanet.org takes us to a Student PIRG action page. Here's the mission statement:

As college students, we are about to face big problems when we graduate - from global warming to endangered species, from the escalating cost and declining quality of health care to the plight of the hungry and homeless.

The PIRGs are originally Ralph Nader-inspired consumer advocacy organzations in the good government/populist strain. Now, obviously, PIRG activists have aligned with the most hardline socialist and neo-Stalinist revolutinary cells on the scene today. Interestingly, Nader himself was interviewed at Amy Goodman's communist media-outlet Democracy Now! earlier this week:

It’s the same old rut ... Amy, what is necessary by way of money, organizers in the field, strategy, smarts, determination to break this massive corporate-state gridlock that’s put our country into a paralysis. Our country is stuck in traffic. It is being prevented from solving many problems or diminishing them—public transit, housing, consumer protection, living wage, universal health insurance, single payer, all these corporate crime crackdowns. All of these are problems that can be addressed and solved, but not when there’s too much power in too few hands, who make the decisions for the many to the many’s disadvantage.

So we have to—we have to ask ourselves the question: What will it take to break through? What will it take to put the people back into their sovereignty? What will it take to make sure that we enforce the Constitution and we don’t get in these foreign military adventures that are unconstitutional, violate statutes and violate international treaties, not just under Bush-Cheney, but there’s an unseemly continuity in this area under the Obama administration.

In any case, watch the video above.

Obviously these two women have no clue as to the economic, political, and social foundations of modern liberal societies. They both look like healthy, clean, well-adjusted young women. I can only imagine the hardcore indoctrination they've received growing up, with teachers and radical agitators expounding the evils of capitalism over and over again until the cows come home. At one point, the woman at left says she wants a "people-run redistribution of wealth," that is, the socialist-state system that expropriates property and redistributes wealth "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

Hey, (dumb) workers of the world, unite!

ACORN Shuts Down Offices Nationwide: San Diego Housing Hustler-Pimp Fired! (VIDEO)

I reported on ACORN's Santa Ana office closing down yesterday. Now we have the Los Angeles Times reporting that ACORN is downsizing nationwide: "ACORN Scaling Back or Shutting Down in Many Cities" (via Mememorandum):

Stung by the recession and a string of scandals, the ACORN community activist organization has been shutting down in many of the communities it once worked to empower.

No new clients are being signed up, said national spokesman Brian Kettenring, while the group conducts an internal investigation into how its business is conducted.

The Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now had already shuttered 40% of its centers -- in cities including Chicago, Salt Lake City, Atlanta and Omaha -- since its high of 105 offices two years ago, he said. The branches helped low- and middle-income clients with housing, jobs and navigating government aid programs.

Kettenring said that the closures were mostly due to the poor economy and had become more frequent in the last year.

"We're seeing the same challenges the entire nonprofit sector is seeing," he said.

But former ACORN members say the scandals that have recently dogged the organization -- including allegations of mismanagement and voter registration fraud -- have been a bigger problem.

You can say that again. Kinda funny how we're seeing all these offices closing in the immediate wake of the Hannah Giles/James O'Keefe undercover investigation.

Also, from Big Government, "San Diego: ACORN Stands By Their Employee, Until They Don’t."

And from the New York Times, "G.O.P. Checks for a Pulse, and Finds One." (Via Memeorandum.)

Orange County ACORN Office Shuts Down!

The Orange County ACORN office has shut its doors. I just spoke with the landlord at the office complex in Santa Ana, California, where local ACORN hacks provided services. The building-owner said she had just spoken with ACORN officials at the Los Angeles office. The group announced intent to vacate the premises this morning; personnel would be coming to Santa Ana to clear out their effects at an undisclosed date. The website to ACORN's Santa Ana office is here.

CEO Bertha Lewis released an earlier statement at ACORN's main page:

As a result of the indefensible action of a handful of our employees, I am, in consultation with ACORN's Executive Committee, immediately ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN's service programs until completion of an independent review.

Looks like the termination of "new intakes" is starting right away, with the immediate downsizing of service delivery for the group. I took these photos. At bottom is the protest sign of Tawnya, one of the Orange County 9-12 protest organizers who visited the office today (that's her reflection in the first picture at the window):

(ADDED: Via Snark and Boobs, check WISTV News, "ACORN Loses Federal Cash, Vacates Columbia Office; Clyburn Responds"; plus, linked at Patriot Room.)

At the Precipice? What Happened to 'Comprehensive Health Care Reform'?

I'm intrigued by the increasing emphasis of the president and top members of his administration on "health insurance reform." Robert Gibbs, at the video, in an interview with Harry Smith on Face the Nation, concedes that Democrats are backing away from the "public option." Meanwhile, he hammers the point about passing "health insurance reform":

Yet, a look back at the administration's earlier language finds a much more sweeping agenda for "comprehensive reform." Here's the president, in his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24th, announcing the need to move this country forward:

None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward.

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance. It is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas. And it’s one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.

Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents work full-time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.

This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.

Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to achieve reform, and that is why I’m bringing together businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue next week.

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

The president speaks of "health care reform" and "comprehensive health care reform." The message isn't just reforming insurance markets; it's to "conquer disease" and find "a cure for cancer," to make the "largest investment in preventive care" and to bring "costs under control."

In June, in an address to the American Medical Association, the president announced his broad ambition that "health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health." The AMA speech marked the administration launch of the major legislative push for comprehensive reform.

By July, though, during his weekly radio address on health care, the president had begun to shift toward the "insurance reform" angle (after months of grass roots tea party activism). But he still implies grand designs in denouncing those attacking his program as socialist:

Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won’t get to choose your doctor – that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That’s also not true. Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.

Finally, opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That’s not true either. I don’t believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don’t think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please."

Yet, by yesterday, in Grand Junction, Obama was shifting gears, attacking insurance firms and markets. The president argued that Americans were being "held hostage by health insurance companies that deny them coverage, or drop their coverage, or charge fees that they can't afford for care that they desperately need."

Obama also backed away from the "robust public option" that's been a centerpiece of the plan:

The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it ... And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.

As we've seen all this weekend, now the administration's all about "health insurance reforms" that will provide "consumer choices" and "competition."

It's quite a dramatic change, rhetorically, and it shows the huge public scale of resistance to Obama's policy hubris. But I'm still not convinced the administration is defeated. Rick Moran argues that ObamaCare is on the "precipice of failure." But now with the new Democratic meme converging on "insurance co-ops," which will include "nonprofit insurance cooperatives," I'm again confident the left is practicing the classic Leninist strategy of one step backwards and two steps forward.

See also, Fox News, "Public Option Losing Steam? White House Open to Health Care Reform Without Government Plan." Also, check Memeorandum.

Conservatives: A Win on Public Option is One Battle on Road to Victory

Leftist Joe Sudbay is whining about how the White House, in "dropping" the public option, will "sacrifice good policy and principles for politics any day." Basically, another netroots radical takes issue with the administation for "blowing off" the party's socialist base.

Actually, I doubt the public option is indeed "off the table." The Politico has a report, "White House Backs Away From Public Health Care Option." But check Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, who nails what's really happening at this stage in Democratic-socialist healthcare reform:

To my fellow bloggers on the right,

This is NOT a victory ....

At best, we have won a skirmish - IF this is not smoke being blown by the Democrats smoke-blower-in-chief. (I am not convinced we have won even that much just yet.) Yes we have made a serious dent in their schemes, but we are not even close to being out of the woods on this yet.

We have a long way to go on this. Remember that Pelosi has already required that reconciliation be used - meaning that only 51 votes are needed in the Senate. Remember that there is a lot more to hate in these various bills being touted by the Democrats than just the public option.

If they get anything at all, they are looking at this as the camel’s nose under the tent. They will increment and “improve” anything they can get passed until it is socialized medicine. That is the ultimate goal. That is what Clinton pushed and that, very, very clearly, is the message of this article.

This is not a victory. We have to keep focused and keep fighting. We have to.

More at the link.

Patrick Briggs, Red-Shirt Goon at Schiff Town Hall: Daily Kos Blogger, OFA Brute, 'Bush Lied, People Died' Antiwar America-Basher!

While working on an update for my Adam Schiff town hall reporting, I came across a comment at Daily Kos by pbriggsiam, a.k.a, Patrick Briggs, a Pasadena local with a long record of hardline leftist activism.

It turns out that Briggs is a Daily Kos blogger who runs his own website at Green Eggs and Ham. He's got a report up on the Schiff event, "Healthcare Townhall - Congressman Adam Schiff - Alhambra.

In 2005, the City of Pasadena ordered Briggs and his wife, Mary Gravel (pictured above), to remove two signs they had posted at their home in support of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. The couple had mounted one sign reading "Support Cindy Sheehan," and another with "War Starts With 'W.' Bush Lied. People Died." The signs violated city ordinances and the couple was threatened with a $500 fine. After initially complying with the municipal code, the Briggs' filed suit in Federal District Court alleging abridgment of their First Amendment rights. The ACLU brief is here. A Los Angeles Times report on the lawsuit is here. And ACLU's press releases are here: "Pasadena to Residents: Watch What You Say," and "Pasadena to Allow Residents to Hang Political Signs." The second ACLU report notes:

City officials say they plan to rewrite an ordinance regulating the posting of political signs on residential property and the city attorney has recommended the city stop enforcing some of the regulations until a new ordinance is written.

That's an important victory for the couple and for freedom of speech.

What's ironic is that, in my interaction with him, I found Patrick Briggs totally hostile to the political opinions of his opponents. Mr. Briggs was bellicose and confrontational - "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" He was essentially telling conservative activists at the Schiff event STFU. He was, in other words, a brutish thug. As I reported yesterday:

The guy ... is an ObamaCare goon. He was aggressively in-your-face making juvenile "L" for loser hand signs, telling conservative activists to "shut up and get out of the way." He kept yelling "loser!" loser"! "Health reform now"! He also started yelling "Wait until 2012!" at conservatives who tried to speak back to him. I talked calmly with the guy. I asked him "why should the democratic process come to a halt if your side won?" He couldn't answer the question. He was confident and said "Obama's health care is coming and you guys can try to win in 2012." I guess that's the street-level version of President Obama's "I don't want folks who created the mess doing a lot of talking."

That's right. Briggs didn't want to hear ObamaCare opponents "doing a lot of talking." He's a classic example of radical leftists who only support First Amendment rights when their issues are under challenge. If conservatives have an opinion, that's fascist and their views should be regulated as hate-speech. Typical.

In any case, Briggs is a hardliner with the Pasadena chapter of Democracy for America. The group is registered as a "Non-federal '527' Political Organization" under FEC guidelines and supports "progressive issues and non-federal Democratic candidates."

He also an Organizing for America cadre. He was the contact person for Tuesday's Democratic Astroturfing activities for the Schiff event. Here's the Oganizing for America link and information:

Time:	Tuesday, August 11 from 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Host:	Patrick Briggs
Contact Phone:	626-664-3487
Location:	Alhambra Civic Center Library – Community Room (Alhambra, CA) 101 S. 1st St. Alhambra, CA 91801

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Briggs is also a member of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena." Interestingly, it turns out that the church's Rector Emeritus, George Regas, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration. A Los Angeles Times profile is here. Regas is closely allied with a number of hardline leftists organizations, including the neo-Stalinist International ANSWER. The All Saints Church is mentioned in this article, "A Small Protest Against Anti-War Elitists in Pasadena, California." And Regas is identified in a 2009 article here, along with both ANSWER and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

In 2007, at the Democracy for America website, Patrick Briggs reported on Regas' push for impeachment proceedings against then-Vice President Dick Cheney. See, "All Saints Episcopal Church - Rector Ed Bacon Advocates Impeachment Investigations of Cheney in July 1 Sermon!"

Briggs signed this manifesto, "IMPEACHMENT: RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY."

Plus, in 2007, Briggs threw his support as a DFA member behind the local grocery union's thug agitation (United Food and Commercial Workers). See, "Southern California Grocery Workers - When Unions Prosper, America Prospers."

Briggs' Pasadena chapter of Democracy in America was also an affilated organizing cell of the White Rose Coalition Protest at Pasadena's Rose Parade. Kevin Lynn of Democracy in America posted an announcement and photo for the event at Revolution, a local newspaper for the Revolutionary Communist Party (here). And, Cindy Sheehan published a commentary at AfterDowningStreet.org on January 1, 2008, "The White Rose and the Rose Parade." Daily Kos posted on the event the same day, "'IMPEACH" signs at the Rose Parade":

Check Discover the Networks' entry for AfterDowningStreet, here. And Gateway Pundit has a report, "It's Official -- Sheehan & Pals Will March Following Last Float In Rose Bowl Parade (Video) ... Update: Sheehan Gets Booed!!

Patrick Briggs, in the various capacities I've noted here, has either actively or incidentally promoted the work of these organizations. And by mounting signs on his home saying "Support Cindy Sheehan" and "War Starts With 'W.' Bush Lied. People Died," Patrick Briggs unequivocally endorsed the statements of a deeply troubled woman who called President Bush a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide."

And now, this man, Patrick Briggs, is out telling citizen anti-ObamaCare demonstrators to STFU, "you guys can try to win in 2012."

Other than that, I'm sure he's a real nice guy.

Briggs' Flickr antiwar photostream is here, with LOTS of America-bashing iconography. Also, a bunch of Patrick Briggs news citations at the Pasadena Public Library are here.

Dems Pledge to Continue ObamaCare Town Halls

From the Washington Post, "Democrats Say Angry Protesters Won't Derail Health-Care Town Halls":

President Obama and top Democrats on Wednesday vowed to push back against angry critics of their health-care overhaul, who have threatened to hijack the debate by purposefully disrupting town halls and other public events convened by Democratic lawmakers this week.

The leader of House Republicans responded by saying that "Democrats are in denial" in dismissing the objections as a fringe movement, "instead of acknowledging the widespread anger millions of Americans are feeling this summer." Conservative groups opposed to the health-care plan have asked their supporters to flood public gatherings featuring members of Congress. From Pennsylvania to Texas to Wisconsin, Democrats have been confronted in recent days by sometimes belligerent attacks against Obama's health-care plan. In one incident, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, an effigy of freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.) was hanged from a noose outside his district office.

The increasingly vocal opposition provoked Democrats to respond Wednesday.

The Democratic National Committee released a Web advertisement that alleges, "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs" to "destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November."

More at the link.

See also, Hot Air, "New DNC ad: Mobs of right-wing lunatics want to feast on your flesh."

Why Progressives Oppose the Geithner Bank Plan

Glenn Greenwald has a hilariously hubristic post up harrumphing the left's "superior" principles in opposing the Obama administration's policies. That's in contrast, of course, to how the "lock-step" conservative-right laid down in submission to the Bush administration's every power grab:

Over the last month, the Obama administration has made numerous decisions in the civil liberties area that are replicas of some of the most controversial and radical actions taken by the Bush administration, and the most vocal critics of those decisions by far were the very same people – ostensibly on "the Left" - who spent the last several years objecting to the same policies as part of the Bush administration’s radicalism. Identically, many of Obama's most consequential foreign policy decisions - in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan - have been criticized by many on the Left. Opposition to Obama’s bank bailout plan is clearly being driven by liberal economists, pundits and bloggers, and much of the criticism over the AIG debacle came from liberals as well. There was pervasive liberal criticism over some of Obama's key appointments, including Tom Daschle, John Brennan and Tim Geithner. That's more independent progressive thinking in two months than the "conservative movement" exhibited with regard to Bush in six years.

Yeah. Right.

One would hope Greenwald might provide a few links to all of those on "the Left" who are so vigorously opposing the new administration's "consequential foreign policy" decisions. As far as I can tell, the criticisms, on Afghanistan for example, are more about the Bush administration getting us involved in the first place than about Obama's babbling incoherence since taking office (Matthew Yglesias is a case in point).

But on the Geithner plan, the left is not opposing Obama because of any "massive expansion of government." In fact, it's the opposite. As James Pethokoukis shows, the left is upset because Obama's not doing enough to reward the progressives with more big government programs:

Liberals are mad that private investment funds are involved. Many liberals speak scornfully of the so-called "hedge fund Democrats" such as Chuck Schumer who are pro-Wall Street and pro-globalization. The whole Geithner plan, in that it uses private investment money, smells like a creation of the hedge fund Democrats to make fat profits for their campaign contributors with little risk. Profits are privitized and risk is socialized. And why should Wall Street, which caused the problem, they argue, profit from fixing it? The big stock market rally only emphasized the point.

***

Liberals are mad Uncle Sam won't get all the profits. I think this is the big one. Liberals aren't worried that the Geithner Plan won't work. They're worried it will. See, when the Paulson Plan came out last September, the Bush White House insisted the scheme would eventually make money for the government since it was buying all these artificially undervalued, distressed assets that would one day rise in price. Former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler agreed, and publicly estimated that the $700 billion toxic asset buy could generate more than $2 trillion for the government. A few days later, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was already spending that dough in an effort to "green the bailout", insisting the profits from the Paulson Plan be invested in a "smart transmission grid or mass transit." But the Geithner Plan splits the profits 50-50, and the government's share may further be eroded by $750 billion in new capital injections. Not much money left over for a Green New Deal.

So, Glenn Greenwald can just shut up. Every political constituency wants more for their cause. The right supported an expansion of state power to protect Americans. The left wants an expansion of state power to expropriate Americans. And that's the real "meaningful difference between the 'conservative movement' and many progressives."

Democratic Denials of Class Warfare

For some reason Dr. Hussein Biobrain has developed an irrational obssession with trying to repudiate the widespread and fundamental understanding of the Democrats as the party of class warfare and economic redistribution.

Of course, even small children learn that leftists glorify the Robin Hood myth that the wealthy are evil and that it's righteous for redistributionist crusaders to transfer wealth from society's most dynamic and innovative to those who are slovenly and less productive. Indeed, by college most students in the liberal arts become familiar with the ideological underpinnings of leftist class warfare through the readings of thinkers from Karl Marks to John Rawls.

In other words, it's a no brainer that Democats can't stand the concentration of wealth and that, IN PARTICULAR, they demonize those who have more at the expense of those who have less. Not only that, the Democratic Party itself has gone through at least three decades of electoral frustration at the presidential level as the party of the poor, the party of class grievance and big government redistributionism. The Bill Clinton administration was universally understood to have advanced a new vision of "neoliberal" Democratic governance that EXPLICITLY repudiated the hard-left Democratic Party constituencies that sought to expand the welfare state and raise taxes on the rich. When President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform act into law, top Democratic Party insiders excoriated the administration's "war on the poor."

In 2004, as the Democrats were hoping to recapture the White House, Rick Perlstein cited pollster Mark Penn to argue that the party was hobbled by outdated "appeals to class grievances and attacks upon corporate perfidy" that were becoming "increasingly hollow" amid an economy in which young "wired-workers" saw themselves as the new leaders of a more socially progressive left-wing coalition.

So it's extremely quixotic that Dr. Hussein has written a new post trying to refute this fundamental truth about American politics, in a post entitled, "Assumptions of Class Warfare." Dr. Hussein takes a stab at my postulation of the class warfare assumption:

As Donald explained in a comment to me, he felt no need to explain why Obama's tax plan is class warfare because it's already assumed to be the case. But of course, that's not how arguments work. If I explain why Position A is wrong and someone wants to refute my argument, they don't just get to say "Position A is correct because I assume that Position A is correct." That's just lame and a complete embarrassment to online debates.

Not that we can't have assumptions in arguments, but this is the KEY assumption. This is the primary assumption that I was attacking in my original post. Yet Donald has now used it twice as the basis for his entire argument.

All of this is true. But what's interesting is Dr. Hussein's attempt to berate and belittle on the use of THIS analytical assumptions. The truth is that assumptions are basic to theory building and poltical analysis. It's not just that we can have them "in arguments," but that it's totally and embarassingly stupid to repudiate them so openly, especially one like Democratic class warfare which is irrevocably ingrained in the American consciousness. Indeed, Dr. Hussein's whole program to destroy a cental assumption like this one violates basic principles of clear thinking and rigorous deduction:

This is a view shared by Isaac AsimovIsaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality ...

So note here, an assumption really is something that is neither positively true nor positively false.

In Dr. Hussein's case, it's demonstrably hare-brained, frankly, to work so feverishly to rebut something that top personalities in his own party long-ago accepted - from President Bill Clinton on down - as a fundamental failure of Democratic ideology.

Now, if Dr. Hussein's trying to prove that President Barack Obama's never used EXPLICITY USED the words "class warfare," that would be another matter. But that's not all he's doing. Dr. Hussein's arguing that the notion of class warfare itself is a strawman "that conservatives invented years ago." In other words, Dr. Hussein rejects the notion that today's Democratic Party is in fact ENGAGING IN class warfare. In response my earlier post showing how President Obama's own statements have deliberately and shamelessly mined the vein of class warfare, Dr. Hussein writes:

I can see how these could be interpreted as remarks against the upper-class, they sound much more like attacks on Republicans and their policies. Obama's not saying that the rich were evil for receiving tax cuts.

So as you can see, Dr. Hussein can only focus on what the president actually said. He can't disprove the assumption of Democratic class warfare, because assumptions are not subject to falsification. All he can do is show that the president didn't call anyone evil. Of course, Obama can let his proxies do that, since when the president attacks the rich for seeking to "transfer wealth" and for refusing "to invest" in the American future, that's the explicit dog-whistle code language that sends the radical leftists to the barricades.

What this whole exchange demonstrates is the larger truth abouth the Democratic Party and the radical left.

The party and its key constituencies are divided existentially on questions of basic identity. Their political program is not in doubt, which is of course the current move in fiscal policy that marks the largest budgetary expansion in American history.

President Obama, the Liar-in-Chief, is himself embarking on a campaign to fight his political opponents using rhetoric that is "carefully calibrated to blur such big government activism." On the other hand, some of the party's constituencies include neo-progressive Marxists who outwardly and proudly advocate a return to Kennedy-era top marginal tax rates of 91 percent on the wealthy.

Now THAT'S class warfare!

However, very few Democratic partisans are willing to come right out and admit they are class warriors, which is why Dr. Hussein's working endlessly but hopelessly to tamp down what is clearly an objective truth, in other words, a basic assumption of American life. The Democrats are now fighting a class war. They are proposing the biggest budget in American history, raising taxes on the affluent, and attempting to sell this fiscal extremism as "fairness."

Of course, this is fundamentally dishonest.

That shouldn't be surprising in Dr. Hussein's case. The man's truly a deviant liar and a despicable partisan malcontent. Excoriating conservatives and Republicans as the scum of the earth makes his world go 'round, and if he has to lie, cheat, steal, and distort to advocate his program of godless postmodern nihilism, that's what he'll do.

As always, don't listen to a word of it. These people have no virtue whatsoever.

See also, Larry Kudlow, "Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, and More."

Motivations of Contemporary Atheists

You know, I've spent a lot of time since the election thinking about the godlessness and moral relativism of the contemporary left.

So many - note that, many - of them extoll their atheism and they readily attack "Christianists" for their traditional values. Modern leftists excoriate traditionalists as blithering idiots or backwood hicks, or worse. Especially in the context of same-same marriage, where the debate is so intense, even violent, the more you listen to these people, the more clear it is that today's radicals want a wholesale revolution in society's moral regime, so they can "have it their way."

In any case, Dinesh D'Souza explains all of this perfectly in his interview at Salvo Magazine:

Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."

How does one do that? One way is liberal Christianity—you simply reinterpret Christian teachings as if they don't really mean what they say. The better way, of course, is to ask where morality comes from. Well, it comes from one of two places. It either comes from ourselves—these are the rules that we make up as we go along—or it comes from some transcendent source. To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment. This doesn't mean that you completely eliminate morality, but it does mean that you reduce morality to a tool that human societies construct for their own advantages. It means that morality can change, and that old rules can be set aside. You can see why this would be a very attractive proposition for the guy who wants to live his life unmolested by the injunctions and prohibitions of Christian morality.

Hat Tip: Hot Air.

Power-Dressing is Back!

These guys are not models. They are Michael Gardner and Bill Brewer, hiring partner and co-founder at Bickel & Brewer, the law firm featured in the Wall Street Journal's, "Inside a Bastion of Old-School Power Attire."

The return of old-school power dressing is something of a "duh" moment for Bill Brewer, co-founder and managing partner of the law firm, which has offices in Dallas and New York City. He never really got the appeal of khakis and rubber-soled Gucci loafers at the office. He prides himself on custom three-button suits with a center vent and shirts from Bruce Clark in New York. His voice tightens with disdain when he describes "those square-toed club shoes" that some young recruits wear to the office.

"I think people expect high-powered lawyers to look like high-powered lawyers," Mr. Brewer says. "Anything else is sending the wrong signal."

This is a great article.

I noted the other day that when I first started teaching at Long Beach City College I wore a coat and tie every day, and some days I wore a blue pin-striped suit. For various reasons I'm dressing much more casual now (mostly it's because I'm heavier, I need a new wardrobe, and my mood has been somewhat out of it), but when the time is right, I'm going to get all decked out again for lectures. There's just nothing that compares to feeling like a million bucks teaching in a crisp ensemble with a pair of spit-and-polish cap-toe oxfords (my dad wore Brooks Brothers and Cable Car suits when I was a kid, so there's some family history there).

In any case, Christina Binkley, the author of the article, also has an interesting blog post on Bickel & Brewer, and parents should be sharing this passage with their kids:

We’re not all litigators, but many of us in public or client-facing jobs communicate our professional roles through our clothes. Research once showed that Dan Rather’s evening newscast was deemed more trustworthy when he wore a sweater or sweater vest. I was dismayed several years ago when the orthopedic surgeon treating my son was wearing shorts under his white smock. He might have been being practical — dressing both for work and his after-work hike? — but I wondered how focused he was on his work that day.

In recent years, workplaces have transformed themselves to take employees’ lifestyles into consideration. Casual dress codes are comfy and it’s nice to have a sense of ease in our increasingly hectic, demanding world. I’m writing this in blue jeans and a black turtleneck. Still, it can be comforting, when hiring a lawyer, doctor, accountant and other professionals, to not be introduced to their lifestyle. Sometimes, we only want to see their game face.