Worst President Ever...

I know, I know ... it's too soon to say if Barack Obama will go down as the worst president in history, but after just the first month of stumbles, and by the looks of the incredible grassroots anti-porkulus activism around the nation, "The One" sure is swinging for the bleachers.

But it's not just Obama's stimulus socialism. Scott at Flopping Aces has a run-down:

* He takes Bush’s position on warrantless wiretaps.

* He hires cronies for political appointments.

* He increases the deficit by a trillion or more (and that’s just his first month!) .

* He stops giving detainees trials.

* He hasn’t closed Gitmo (issued an order to try, but Bush tried too).

* He will still do renditions.

* He wrote caveats into his own Exec Orders to still allow for torture like water-boarding.

* He put a guy in charge at CIA who admits to doing 60-80 renditions HIMSELF.

* He sent 17000 Americans to Afghanistan w no plan and no timeline for withdrawal.

* He has not ordered the withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months.

* He ignored millions of Americans devastated by an ice storm in Tennesee, W Virginia, and Kentucky.

* He has NOT HELPED the economy one bit.

* He has no plan to solve even a single challenge facing his admin.

Oh well, at least he has a D next to his name and can read a teleprompter.

WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Robert Stacy McCain's Full Metal Blogging

I'm still holding out on switching to the full advertising mode for this blog (although PrivatePigg certainly warmed me up to it a bit), but if folks have contemplated making a living as a blogger, look no further than Robert Stacy McCain for inspiration.

"The Other McCain" likes folks to call him by his middle name, so go check out "Stacy's" blog for today's lesson on building traffic, "Notes on Rule 4 ("Make Some Enemies"), which is a reference to a key section in his landmark recent post, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year."

If you read Stacy's stuff regularly, you'll find that nothing's sacred - no issue and no blogger can find a snark-free zone when "Mr. Qwerty-quick" fingertips is on the assignment. Stacy's fair though - perhaps to a fault - as we can see in the decency of his commentary on Andrew Sullivan - a guy who's pretty much gone overboard, but perhaps has enough in the political-capital bank to stay relevant to the left-wing. And be sure to check Stacy's link to this essay at The Nation, where the "excitable one's" identification as "the neoconservative gay pundit" just about made me boogie to the bathroom on a porcelain-hurl run (and don't even get me going about the post-neo pomos at the Extraordinary Gentlemen!)

But read the whole post, in any case, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year, and especially "Rule #5" on "hottie blogging":

* A. Everybody loves a pretty girl -- It's not just guys who enjoy staring at pictures of hotties. If you've ever picked up Cosmo or Glamour, you realize that chicks enjoy looking at pretty girls, too. (NTTAWWT.) Maybe it's the vicious catty she-thinks-she's-all-that factor, or the schadenfreude of watching a human trainwreck like Britney Spears, but no one can argue that celebrity babes generate traffic. Over at Conservative Grapevine, the most popular links are always the bikini pictures. And try as I might to make "logical arguments" for tax cuts, wouldn't you rather watch Michelle Lee Muccio make those arguments?

Now you know why I've got that beautiful picture of Fox News' Jamie Colby up there on top. Coffee and Colby on the weekends is what gets me fired-up for my heavy-duty early-morning writing sessions (I wrote an essay on the Fairness Doctrine this morning for Pajamas, which will probably be available early next week). So, there'll be more women around here, and folks'll have a bit of a respite from the full-bore high-powered neoconservative analysis that's the staple of American Power.

But wait! I'm currently working on Stacy's last directive:

* D. Feminism sucks -- You can never go wrong in the blogosphere by having a laugh at the expense of feminists. All sane people hate feminism, and no one hates feminism more than smart, successful, independent women who've made it on their own without all that idiotic "Sisterhood Is Powerful" groupthink crap.

That's right. I picked up a copy of Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse last night, which includes this for a teaser:

Can a man read Intercourse? ... Can a man read a book written by a woman in which she, the author, has a direct relationship to experience, ideas, literature, life, including fucking, without mediation - such that what she says and how she says it are not determined by boundaries men have set for her? Can a man read a woman's work if it does not say what he already knows? Can a man let in a challenge not just to his dominance but to his cognition? And, specifically, am I saying that I know more than men about fucking? Yes, I am. Not just different: more and better, deeper and wider, the way anyone used knows the user.

And that's just from the preface, so I'll keep readers updated with further installments from Intercourse (but check Cassy Fiano in the meanwhile, who's practiced at smacking-down the Dworkin-types).

In any case, that's all for this installment of the "Full-Metal Blogging" thing!

Worst Case Scenario? American Survivor Edition

Well, I'm pleased to notify readers that I beat Allahpundit to the Glenn Beck's "American apocalypse" story with my entry yesterday, "Worst Case Scenario? Preparing for Anarchy in America."

Allahpundit's piece, "Glenn Beck: The End of America is Nigh, Maybe," sounds a bit whacked at first, but check it out:

Even before watching this, if you’d asked me which media star’s most likely to turn survivalist, move to the mountains, and start doing his show from a lead-lined bunker, there’s no doubt what the answer would have been. There’s something “off” about Beck in a way that’s not true of other chat-show hosts, although that’s not necessarily a criticism: O’Reilly and Hannity can be tiresome in more than small doses but this guy I find watchable even at a stretch. Partly it’s the sheer bravado of the performance, partly it’s the challenge of trying to figure out what’s going on in his head to make him the way he is. As big an audience as he has, I’m surprised it’s not bigger. He’s one of a kind.

Videos of yesterday's entire show are at the link.

Some of the commenters at my post yesterday thought this stuff is out there, but Bloviating Zeppelin puts things in perspective:

You know sir, at first blush it's easy to dismiss those who may be motivated for preparation as merely apocalyptical moonbats requiring a tinfoil refit. However, at my advanced age, I am more inclined to fit into this category than any other. At 60, educated, BA in english and communications studies (hoped for an entire career in radio many years ago) and a recent Masters in emergency services (applicable to my job in law enforcement), I am yet and still of the opinion that we are about to witness a true landslide of biblical proportions.

I've lived 75 miles away from my job since 1993. I live at the 4,000-foot level in the Sierra Nevada mountains where most people know me in town, the Postmaster knows me, the store owner knows me, I can run a tab if I wish (but I don't wish), and I can leave the keys in my car on Main Street all day. I frequently leave my car running when I go for mail at the post office, or to pick up items in the store. Everyone in town knows, essentially, that everyone else is armed. Resultingly, it is predominantly a polite town. I've carried for years, due to my job. I was the recent Rangemaster for my 2,500+ officer department. I have long guns, handguns, a shotgun. I have requisite ammunition.

Given the current course of events as I've documented here and here, I am of the opinion that protests, marches, organizational resistance and then possible violent insurrection are likely in our future.

I can tell you that, by that time, I shall be retired and likely standing against the government that, as an active officer, I swore to uphold. My guns are mine. I bought them, lawfully. My ammunition is mine, I bought it lawfully. My thoughts and writings are mine, I hold them in my heart. My philosophy is mine, I've developed it over five decades. My religious beliefs are mine, I've seen them upheld in the world. My sense of history is mine, I still have a memory and am not subject to convenient Liberal Historical Alzheimers.

Gird thy loins, Americans. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Go check out BZ additional thoughts on all of this, at "Fomenting Civil War."

Al Qaeda Militants in Orange County, California

I first saw this story last night at Jawa Report, and it's creepy.

Ahmadullah Sais Niazi, who is the brother-in-law of Amin al-Haqan, an Afghan al-Qaeda operative and bodyguard to Osama bin Laden, has been arrested by federal officials in Tustin, California, on immigration-related charges. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Tustin man of Afghan origin, who failed to mention in his application for U.S. citizenship that his brother-in-law is designated as an Al Qaeda terrorist, appeared in federal court Friday to answer charges that could send him to prison for 35 years.

Ahmadullah Sais Niazi's detention hearing in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana was postponed until Tuesday, but the 34-year-old defendant used the occasion to accuse federal agents of trying to force him to become an informant ....

Federal agents descended Friday at dawn on the tract home in Tustin where Niazi has lived for at least eight years with his wife and three young children. He submitted quietly to the arrest, and stunned neighbors watched for three hours as agents, some in body armor, searched the single-story house for evidence that Niazi lied to government officials about his background and foreign travel.

A five-count grand jury indictment, handed up a week ago and kept under seal until Friday, charged Niazi with two counts of perjury and one count each of naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud and making a false statement to a federal agency.

Niazi, who has lived in the United States since 1998 and earned citizenship five years ago, is related by marriage to Amin al-Haq, an Afghan militant who fought the Soviet occupation of the 1980s with a U.S.-backed Islamic resistance force that now is branded an Al Qaeda affiliate.

Al-Haq is married to Niazi's sister, Hafiza, and is said to be Osama bin Laden's security coordinator. The 49-year-old Afghan was identified by the United Nations Security Council as an Al Qaeda operative in March 2001 and listed as a "specially designated global terrorist" by the U.S. government a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Al-Haq's name came up during the terrorism trial of Bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, last year. There have been recent unconfirmed reports that Al-Haq has been detained by Pakistani security forces.

Niazi said he and other family members were upset by his sister's marriage because of Al-Haq's "past activities," an FBI agent who interviewed Niazi almost a year ago reported in a search warrant request that a federal magistrate approved Thursday.

This is unreal. According to the mapped location of Niazi's home, my son's orthodontist's office is basically across the street.

Read the whole thing, in any case. The Times' piece suggests that federal officials may have arrested Niazi after he refused to cooperate with the government as an informant. Niazi and his wife, Jamilah Romlas Amin, who is also a U.S. citizen, have wired $48,000 in remittances to relatives in Pakistan and Afghanistan over the last 8 years, and their close family members are suspected of transferring $364,000 to relatives overseas through a Cambodian bank.

Jawa Report has the posted a copy of the full federal indictment.

Tea Time? Anti-Stimulus Protests Surge Nationwide

Investor's Business Daily reports on the wave of anti-stimulus protests taking place nationwide:

Holding signs reading "Stimulate Business, Not Government," "Families Against Porkulus" and "Say No To Generational Theft," protesters opposed to the $787 billion stimulus package have been mobilizing across the country.

It started last Monday in Seattle, then moved Tuesday to Denver, where President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. That was followed by another one in Mesa, Ariz., where Obama unveiled a mortgage rescue plan.

Another protest was planned for Saturday outside the office of Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, Kan. The Democrat voted for the stimulus. His office didn't return calls seeking comment.

As unemployment soars and anger over Wall Street bailouts mounts, public outrage will seek an outlet. Populism could go in many directions — and could easily ebb when the economy revives.

But if it takes shape as an anti-spending movement, it could revive conservatives much as the 1970s tax protests did.

To be sure, the protest sizes so far are a far cry from the left's anti-globalization and anti-war demonstrations of the past decade. But they appear to have grass-roots origins. The organizer of the Kansas protest, Amanda Grosserode, calls herself a home-schooling mom who is "fed up" with the spending in Washington. She has been a member of Fair Tax Kansas City since last fall.

"My husband and I were feeling frustrated that the stimulus had passed with very little debate and no one had read it," she told IBD. "I said, 'We need to do something.' "

She began contacting family and friends, and eventually received attention via Fair Tax Kansas City and local talk radio.

Grosserode received considerably more publicity after e-mailing popular conservative commentator and blogger Michelle Malkin.

"I think the taxpayer revolt is the new counterculture," said Malkin, who has been publicizing the protests on her blog. "People want to stand up and say, 'Hey, I'm paying for that, I do not support that.' "

Malkin, who lives near Denver, attended the Mile High City protest, which also involved conservative groups like the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank.

Michelle Malkin has been all over the issue, hammering the leftocrats. See, for example, "Tea Party U.S.A.: The Movement Grows."

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

Islamic Radicalization and the West

I received a pointed e-mail this morning from a hostile reader, Maysoon Zayid, with the subject heading, "Racist":

Scott Peterson beheaded his wife ... was he Muslim? No! This is a case of pure domestic violence. It's a male issue, not Muslim ...

So continues the intense pushback against the possibility that the murder of Aasiya Hassan was not an "honor killing." Even Kamran Pasha, the Muslim author of a Huffington Post essay on the topic, weighed in at the comments, emphatically claiming, "'Honor killings' - the murder of an innocent woman to avenge some sense of 'personal honor' - are not part of Islam's true teachings or Prophet Muhammad's life example."

Well, on top of this, it turns out we have more news suggesting that the American Muslim community's campaign is escalating against the "honor killing" meme. As the New York Times reports this morning:

At 4:30 p.m. today at The Islamic Society of Niagara Frontier in Amherst, N.Y., the president of the Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson, and Salma Elkadi Abugideiri, the author of the book “Garments for One Another: Ending Domestic Violence in Muslim Families,” will be facilitating a discussion “in memory” of Ms. Hassan.

The Muslim-American community in Buffalo and around the United States has reacted with outrage over suggestions that this was a religiously motivated killing, an “honor killing” brought on by the shame of Mr. Hassan’s wife seeking a divorce.

Why is the public discussion so heated on this one killing? Most of the media coverage so far has been local to Buffalo, with the exception of some reporting on Fox News - and there's a clue. The left-wing media, in tandem with the Islamic community, wants to quickly quash "honor killing" talk. Should that meme gain a credible foothold in the national discussion, the notion that Muzzammil Hassan was a "moderate" Muslim would be obliterated, and of course conservative cultural arguments in the larger war-on-terror narrative would be all the more compelling. In other words, we're witnessing a high-stakes media framing-battle of epic cultural and political proportions.

Notice, for example, in Mark Steyn's essay this morning, how Britain has capitulated to the forces of pro-Islamist political correctness. Steyn suggests that the Muslim extremists have migrated from Pakistan to London:

Among the growing population of Yorkshire Pakistanis is a fellow called Lord Ahmed, a Muslim member of Parliament. He threatened "to bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the House of Lords" if it went ahead with an event at which the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders would have introduced a screening of his controversial film "Fitna."

Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, reacted to this by declaring Wilders persona non grata and having him arrested and returned to the Netherlands.

Smith is best known for an inspired change of terminology: last year she announced that henceforth Muslim terrorism (an unhelpful phrase) would be reclassified as "anti-Islamic activity." Seriously. The logic being that Muslims blowing stuff up tends not to do much for Islam's reputation – i.e., it's an "anti-Islamic activity" in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was an anti-Japanese activity.

Steyn continues by noting that the greatest population growth in many of the world's Western nations is found in the Muslim communities:

Along with the demographic growth has come radicalization: It's not just that there are more Muslims, but that, within that growing population, moderate Islam is on the decline – in Singapore, in the Balkans, in northern England – and radicalized, Arabized, Wahhabized Islam is on the rise. So we have degrees of accommodation: surrender in Islamabad, appeasement in London, acceptance in Toronto and Buffalo.

Yep, accomodate, or you'll be branded as "racist" for even entertaining the concept that Muzzammil Hassan's alleged beheading of his wife is a classic case of Muslim honor killing.

And note as well Steyn's inclusion of Buffalo, New York, in the listing of Western cities lying down for Islamic radicals.

Despite signs of accommodation in New York to the Islamic interest coalition today, the debate over Mrs. Hassan's murder continues. Phyllis Chesler has a new piece on the question, "Beheadings and Honor Killings," and she points to an essay from World Net Daily, "Beheader Hubby Was Hero to U.S. Muslim Activists," which notes:

According to a Council on Foreign Relations report, David Powers, a professor of Islamic law and history at Cornell University, explained that the Quran permits men to use physical force against disobedient wives in some circumstances. A woman may ask for divorce, but only a man can grant her request.

"Classical Shariah lays out very limited conditions under which a woman can divorce a man – he must be infertile at the time of marriage; insane; or have leprosy or another contagious skin disease," the CFR report states.

Indeed, as scholar Timothy Furnish has written, the practice of Islamic decapitation "has both Qur'anic and historical sanction. It is not the product of a fabricated tradition."

Considering how hard the Muslim lobby is pushing back on this, it remains to be seen if the left's disinformation campaign against this scholarly consensus carries the day.

Indeed, new cries of "racism" and "bigotry" are already being hurled.

Worst Case Scenario? Preparing for Anarchy in America

I just watched Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. He's been doing a series of broadcasts on impending, all-out social breakdown, and he asks, "Our government thinks it needs to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Why would it be crazy for you to want the same thing?"

Here's the video:

That's the conclusion to the episode.

At the introduction he's talking about at the total collapse of the United States by 2014. All banks have been nationalized. Business and unions are run by the government. 50 million people are unemployed worldwide, and countries have collapsed. Mexico has been taken over by narco-terrorists. He even had to run a disclaimer at the beginning of the show, lest people think this was like "War of the Worlds."

The funny thing is that I just went out to lunch with a former student of mine and we were discussing this exact same thing.

I mentioned what I saw as frightening left-wing craziness and moral breakdown across the land, and I said off-hand that we needed to dig in our heels and fight the Obama hordes who are nationalizing everything. I suggested that we could have Democrats in power for two terms or more, and the total breakdown of society wasn't that far-fetched. Oh sure, we'd still have constitutional democracy, but America would be different: Abortion on demand, marriage abolished in favor of a civil-union smorgasbord, our military downsized and hollowed out, backed by unconditional diplomacy with our enemies from Caracas to Southern Lebanon to Tehran. Multiculturalism takes over the schools with conservatism and traditional speech prohibited under a new regime of "hate crimes" legislation (which is starting to happen now, for example, UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, "Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio").

My friend said he was thinking about buying a little house out in Montana or somewhere so he'd have a retreat for his family if the country erupted into Katrina-like anarchy on a national scale. He mentioned that California is expecting a Biblical-level earthquake at any time, and our state government is totally incompetent. He wants to be ready.

I spoke with another friend about this, and here's a snippet of what her family has been doing amid real concerns of American anarchy:

I think that there is going to be a serious shortage of food, and personally, we have been buying food for storage for the past few months, and will continue to do so.

Besides the food, we are stocking up on many other essentials ... like over-the-counter meds, and first aid supplies. We are stocking multi-vitamins and minerals, allergy meds, ibuprophen, etc. We are in town, which concerns me, but there is not much that we can do about that, now. As things progress, there are going to be roaming gangs of people, taking whatever they can get from anyone who has anything.

Up until last year, we never owned any kind of weapon, and now we have five. I don't know if you are aware of this, or not, but it is getting harder and harder to buy ammo..stores are selling out as quickly as they get it in ... and the price is going up by the week. Food prices are increasing rapidly. We are very aware of it ... Even in those stores, some items have increased as much as a dollar or more on some items.

I have a friend who was a teacher in Texas, who moved his entire family to Idaho, and built a home in the mountains, and has been stocking it for a long time. Another friend is on a mountain, outside of Atlanta, and he has made his home like a fortress.

So, let's think about Glenn Beck's hypothetical question, "Would it be crazy for us to prepare for a worst-case scenario"?

I don't really think so, although look at how easy it is for extreme left-wing blogger Dave Neiwert to smear Glenn Beck as an apocalyptic crackpot. I'm sure the prospect of conservative annihilation warms his heart.

Things are seriously out of whack in this country. My basic sense is that the economy will work its way out of recession in the next year or two. Companies will start hiring and investing, the housing market should bottom-out before too long (on its own, via the price mechanism and the shake out in toxic mortgages), and the Republican Party will emerge out of its current funk to offer up a credible - and potentially sensational - challenger to the White House in 2012.

That said, a possible two-terms of Barack Obama, and perhaps another Democratic administration after that, will leave a legacy of increasing socialization and social-leveling, while a growing moral decay sweeps across the land among the "multi-culti" constituencies of the Democratic Party establishment.

It is no wonder why regular Americans are making preparations for some type of end-times scenario. Taking into consideration what has happened in Washington this past couple of weeks, who can second guess them?

Jesus Christ: Dead Nihilist of the Week?

Where do we draw the line on respectable blogging? Is there no standard below which leftists will sink to ridicule and demonize?

To wit, at Repsac3's attack blog, American Nihilist, we have this post from Truth101, "Dead Nihilist of the Week - Jesus."

Folks can read the whole thing at the link, but even those who are but moderately religious would recoil at the blasphemy. Indeed, I have received this e-mail from a reader commenting on Repsac3 and his fellow bloggers:

The more I read the things these guys write, the more appalled I am at the way they seem to revel in their godlessness, as evidenced by their mockery and ridicule of God, and the Bible.

If they were as wise as they believe themselves to be, they would realize how close they have come to blasphemy, and instead of being in derision, they would be in fear - and since they are so familiar with the Bible, they should, also, know about this verse: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good," Psalm 14:1.

Moral-Economy and the Housing Bailout

David Brooks makes a fundamental point concerning the current rage for bailout politics:

Our moral and economic system is based on individual responsibility. It’s based on the idea that people have to live with the consequences of their decisions. This makes them more careful deciders. This means that society tends toward justice — people get what they deserve as much as possible ...

That pretty much sums up my own feelings, and I'm facing some potentially wrenching personal economic change later this year, when I look to negotiate new terms with my mortgage banker, or failing that, to sell my home. Whatever I do, I'm not asking for any "bailout," and I'll accept the consequences of my own financial decisions regarding the purchase of my house.

In any case, the Los Angeles Times has a good piece on folks on both side of the debate, in Long Beach, where I teach: "Housing Relief Becomes a Fence Between Neighbors":

Ledeen Halloran and Harry Snegg live a few houses apart on Claiborne Drive in Long Beach. They both have good jobs, they both voted for John McCain -- and they both have seen their home values fall more than 40%.

But when it comes to their views on mortgage relief, these two neighbors are on different sides of the street.

Halloran, 50, is a fan of President Obama's new plan to stave off foreclosures and thinks it could provide the cushion she needs to stay in her home.

"These bad mortgages started this whole recession, and if they don't do something about it we can't turn things around," she said.

Snegg, 62, thinks the $75-billion plan amounts to a taxpayer-funded bailout for people who either couldn't manage their money or took a gamble to score easy winnings in the real estate boom.

"People should get some help, but I don't think I should have to pay for it," Snegg said.

Halloran and Snegg represent a debate that is happening across the country, although the two neighbors say they mostly keep their views to themselves.

Snegg, who is divorced, worries that talking too negatively about people who are hurting isn't very neighborly. Halloran, also divorced, said she hadn't told her mother or her friends that she was having trouble with her mortgage.

Halloran moved into the Bixby Knolls neighborhood of 1940s-era homes in 1996. In 2006, she was thinking about selling and moving to the East Coast, to be closer to her son's college. So she refinanced her 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, shifting to an adjustable rate loan and tapping some of her equity to pay for renovations.

A few months later, she borrowed against her house again to pay for more home upgrades and to cover her son's tuition.

There was one hitch, however: Her loan had an option that allowed her to pay the interest only, but when she did, the unpaid principal was added to her balance. Now her mortgage exceeds the value of her home by about $150,000, and her $3,400-a-month payment is more than an entire two-week paycheck.

"I cut out coffee. I cut out movies. I cut out all kinds of things I was buying at the grocery store," Halloran said. "But when my property tax comes due in March, I'm probably not going to be able to pay."

Gone are thoughts of selling the home, and she worries that by this summer she will fall behind on her payments and lose it to the bank.

Halloran blames herself for spending money she did not have, but she also says her mortgage broker and the bank that gave her the loan -- the now failed Downey Savings & Loan in Newport Beach -- promised lower payments. The loan documents she signed show an initial payment of $2,900 a month. Her first bill was for $4,200 a month.

"We shouldn't get help for free," Halloran said. "There should be some penalty to the homeowner, but without some help, there are going to be a lot more people losing their homes."

Officials at U.S. Bancorp, which now owns Downey, said they could not comment on Halloran's loan.

A few houses down, Snegg says he knows full well the pain of foreclosure: He went through it himself in 1995.

At that time, he said, a downturn in the economy forced his advertising firm into bankruptcy. He tried to refinance his loan but, with home values sinking, could not secure a new loan with better terms.

So when he bought his current home in 2001, Snegg said he decided to play it safe. He took out a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 6.5% and resisted the urge to refinance at a lower rate, avoiding the associated fees.

"Interest rates are so low I sometimes feel foolish for not refinancing," he said.

He said he doesn't want people like Halloran to be forced out of their homes, but he also doesn't want to see his taxes raised in the future to cover the expanding government debt.

"I feel for people who are having trouble," Snegg said. "I've been there. And when I was in foreclosure, there were no government bailouts."

Snegg thinks that banks that have received taxpayer dollars through the Troubled Asset Relief Plan should use some of that money to help people like Halloranby granting easier payment terms.

But having the government take the extra step of actually giving banks more money to help Halloran cover her payments seems too far, he said.

There's more at the link.

I'll be writing more about this stuff as the months go by, but see my earlier post from this morning, "Perverse Incentives in Obama's Housing Plan."

Also, see Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast, where after noting she scrimped and saved and budgeted to buy a house, we have this:

The larger picture is not "Where's my government handout?", but what the consequences are of letting millions of people be foreclosed out of their houses. What happens to a neighborhood when a third, or half, of your neighbors are forced out of their houses, which then fall into disrepair? What good is your gourmet kitchen going to do you when the house next door is boarded up after vandals come in and strip it of all the copper piping? The reality is that the age of "I got mine and fuck you" is over. The days of looking over one's shoulder to make sure that scapegoat-of-choice doesn't get a piece of the action are over. Like it or not, we are all in this mess together.

So, now we should socialize responsibility? I doubt that's the American way.

Jeffrey Goldberg Eviscerates Glenn Greenwald in One Paragraph

You know, I've been highly critical of Jeffrey Goldberg in the past, but the guy's actually growing on me a bit. Indeed, he wrote some of the most interesting essays during the recent Israel-Gaza war, brutally honest and fully respectable.

His reputation is getting another boost this afternoon with this brief but devastating takedown of Glenn Greenwald, "Glenn Greenwald is Hysterical":

Not funny-hysterical, just hysterical. I think he feels badly about writing for The American Conservative, maybe because he knows that writing for a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan and animated by Buchanan's hostility to Jews and to Israel is a self-marginalizing act for any Jewish person trying to convince other Jews to leave Team AIPAC and support J Street. I don't read Greenwald very much - only when Andrew links to him - but his characterization of my politics means that he's either dishonest or ignorant. If he hasn't read what I've written about, say, the settlements, or about AIPAC, then he's not qualified to comment on my politics. If he has read these articles, then he knows that I'm not a revanchist Zionist, but falsely accuses me of being one anyway. What a putz.

Now that's some decent blogging!

**********

For reference, see Glenn Greenwald, "Jeffrey Goldberg's Gasping, Dying Smear Tactics" (have doggy bags handy while reading this post).

See also, Robert Stacy McCain, "Glenn Greenwald: 'No Anti-Semite Could Possibly Hate Me Worse Than I Hate Myself'

Perverse Incentives in Obama's Housing Plan

The evidence is coming in immediately for the perverse market effects of President Barack Obama's mortgage-relief plan. Check out the guy below, who's facing foreclosure, and with the announcement of the Obama plan, his mortgage company is "barrreling full-force to take me out of this house":

I wrote about the inherent inequities in the mortgage-bailout plan yesterday (lots of folks "underwater" who continue to pay the bills will get no relief). Not only that, the administration may very well be saving untold numbers of borrowers who were untruthful in their original mortgage applications; and further, the mortgage "cram-down" provisions could "would jeopardize the endangered capital of banks, pension funds and other holders of such securities, including the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

As regular readers know, I'm interested to see how all of this turns out, so stay tuned ...

**********

The iReport link is here. It's tough to watch this guy, but be sure to read the comments for a flavor of the social divisions caused by any housing bailout.

Bikini-Clad Women as Objects, or Why I Like Going to the Beach...

You've got to love this CNN story, "Men See Bikini-Clad Women as Objects, Psychologists Say":

It may seem obvious that men perceive women in sexy bathing suits as objects, but now there's science to back it up.

New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.

The research was presented this week by Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"This is just the first study which was focused on the idea that men of a certain age view sex as a highly desirable goal, and if you present them with a provocative woman, then that will tend to prime goal-related responses," she told CNN.

Although consistent with conventional wisdom, the way that men may depersonalize sexual images of women is not entirely something they control. In fact, it's a byproduct of human evolution, experts say. The first male humans had an incentive to seek fertile women as the means of spreading their genes.

"They're not fully conscious responses, and so people don't know the extent to which they're being influenced," Fiske said. "It's important to recognize the effects."

Umm, I'm reminded of my breast blogging on Ann Althouse. Cracker asked how do I respond to "questions about the blog author's obsession with another blog author's breasts"?

Well, let's just chaulk it up to evolutionary biology, or as Jimmy Carter once said:

I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it.

And don't forget, as Little Miss Attilla has noted , "There is a marked tendency for heterosexual men to be interested in women."

**********

P.S. I'm forwarding this to my breast-blogging mentor, Robert Stacy McCain, for a vote of approval on some shameless blogwhoring.

Kamran Pasha: "The Greatest Tragedy of Islam"

Kamran Pasha, a Hollywood filmmaker, novelist and Pakistani-born Muslim, argues that for all of Islam's progressive teachings on the equality of women, the blood ritual of honor killings are the "greatest tragedy of Islam" (via Memeorandum):

As one of the first Muslims to succeed as a writer in Hollywood, I have been interviewed several times on BridgesTV and was delighted by the professionalism and media savvy of its staff. I had never met the Hassans, but I had been proud of their accomplishments. They were bringing an Islam of love, compassion and human brotherhood to the world, while countering the horrific images of violence and misogyny that had tainted how my fellow Americans saw my faith. The Hassans were people I admired - educated professionals and patriotic Americans with a commitment to family and community.

And then I heard how Aasiya Hassan died and I wanted to throw up ....

The greatest tragedy for me as a Muslim is that my faith is associated with such horrific actions that run counter to everything that Prophet Muhammad stood for. To those who know little about Islamic history, it may sound laughable to assert that Islam began as a proto-feminist movement. But it's true. Perhaps the way out of this madness for the Muslim community is to look back at the life of Prophet Muhammad and remember his true legacy as a visionary champion of women's rights ....

So if all this is true, where does this idea of "honor killing" come from in the Muslim world? Unfortunately, it is one of the ugly elements of pre-Islamic Arabian culture that continues to reassert itself, despite the Prophet's efforts to eradicate the practice. In fact, Prophet Muhammad nearly lost his own beloved wife to the madness of the crowds screaming about "sexual honor" ... The greatest tragedy of Islam is that some Muslim men continue to uphold these pagan practices that the Prophet outlawed 1,400 years ago ....

The choice that stands before Muslim men is stark. Do we follow ancient and evil practices, creating a cycle of violence and grief, and use culture as an excuse for our sins? Or do we follow our Prophet and create a better world where men and women treat each other with dignity and love? Do we turn life on this Earth into Hell, or into Paradise? The answer will reveal whether we are Muslims, people who have surrendered themselves to the true God of mercy and compassion, or idolaters, people who fashion God according to their own self-serving desires.

Be sure to read the whole post, "Honor Killing" and Islam."

Kamran Pasha sounds like a reasonable man who would fit the definition of an Islamic "moderate." Here he offers a very balanced take on the Muslim faith and laments how medieval traditions - seen in Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife in a religious ritual killing - indeed represents the worst atrocities inherent to the Muslim faith.

As readers know, common sense and reasonable familiarity with Islamic teaching and culture indicate that cases like this are not "isolated" simply because they are few in number. Such horror is a function of lingering primordial passions, as I've shown here, here, and here.

Once again, Repsac3 has attempted to demonize and discredit as racist fearmongers those who would shout from the rooftops the truth about Islamic depravity. We need less of these enabling left-wing apologists for Islamic violence and more of the genuine "reformers" of the faith so that right and good will prevail against the forces of barbarity and evil.

**********

UPDATE: Kamran Pasha has responded to this post, here:

I am NOT saying that such horrific acts as "honor killings" are Islamic. The whole point of my piece is that they are un-Islamic and were rejected by Prophet Muhammad, who attempted to end these brutal PAGAN PRE-ISLAMIC practices.

My response is here.

Aasiya Hassan's Beheading an "Honor Killing"?

Well, the hyenas are out in the comments to my most recent post on the beheading of Aasiya Hassan, "Islamist Decapitation and Western Apologists." The intensity of the comments, which are not just analytical remarks, but crude ad hominem attacks, raises the question of why? What's at stake for these people, these nihilists who can see no fundamental distinctions in this crime?

Indeed, Repsac3 has distorted the basic issue out of all proportion, for example, on Mark Steyn's remark that, "If Muzzammil Hassan decapitated his [wife] as an Islamic ritual, then his entire professional life — Mister Moderate Muslim — was a lie." Steyn is not asking "if Hassan's beheading was an Islamic ritual killing"? He's indicating the stakes for allegedly "moderate" Muslims and cultural relativists in how the outcome of this Islamic barbarity is framed. Indeed, as the Buffalo News reports:

While Muslim leaders have urged against applying cultural stereotypes to the crime, advocates for women linked the killing to attitudes in Muslim societies.

“This was apparently a terroristic version of honor killing, a murder rooted in cultural notions about women’s subordination to men,” said Marcia Pappas, New York State president of the National Organization for Women.

She decried the scant national media attention paid to the story, which broke the same day as the commuter plane crash that killed 50 people in Clarence.

While domestic violence affects all cultures, Muslim women find it harder to break the silence about it because of a stigma, she said.

As I reported earlier, and citing Timothy Furnish's, "Beheading in the Name of Islam," Muzzammil Hassan's method of killing is rooted in ancient Muslim culture and tradition. Because Mrs. Hassan had just filed for divorce, the overwhelming likelihood is that Muzzammil would lose face among the Islamic communty's business investors if his wife's independence indicated dishonor to a Muslim man.

According to Phyllis Chesler in her update, "Cold, Premeditated, Ritual Murder. The Honor Killing of Aasiya Z. Hassan. Part Two," Aasiya Hassan's sister has spoken to the fact that Mrs. Hassan had been beaten and bruised over a period of 8 years. This violence is being seen as not simply "domestic violence," but Muslim-generated cultural subordination to the male head of household.

Indeed, think about it? Why beheading? Why did Muzzammil resort to the barbarity of beheading in killing his wife? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SHOOT HER? That would be "American-style" if this man is so moderate and assimilated. No, this killing is not a case of spontaneous patriarchical rage? This is methodical, premeditated religious ritual. An understanding of this is found only within the context of medieval practice. Muzzammil deliberately chose the method of killing known around the world as THE CRIME OF CHOICE among the most extreme aderents to Islamist barbarity and terrorism. This is jihadi justice and honor in the home. Had Muzzammil indeed been so "moderate," he certainly wouldn't have risked the image of the assimmilated, secular Muslim community he cultivated by adopting a method of killing straight out the 8th century.

As one of the readers at Daniel Pipes' blog notes:

The hard question that needs to be asked here is how a supposedly "moderate" Muslim figure like Muzzammil Hassan ended up committing an act (an apparent honor killing) that represents one of the most barbaric attributes found in Middle Eastern and South Asian cultures.

Aasiya Hassan's independent actions brought dishonor upon the family pride of Muzzammil Hassan. While attorneys for Mr. Hassan reject the portrayal of pride and honor as motives for Mrs. Hassan's murder, some women's advocates remain convinced:

Advocates for women — some of them Muslims — have called for the community to acknowledge religious and cultural traditions that stigmatize divorce and heighten the danger of violence in divorce cases.

**********

UPDATE: Roger Gardner weighs in on this "debate":

Are we seriously going to debate this issue? Have we slipped that far down that slippery slope of multicultural pc nonsense? Have we abandoned all reason, all common sense, merely to show our respect to a bloodthirsty cult that poses as a legitimate religion? Have we learned nothing in all this time? Are we determined to continue our roles as useful idiots? Will we just ignore all that we have learned about the treacherous duplicity of the Muslim world, the evil machinations of its political arms, most noticeably in the recent scandals of that serpent's nest CAIR?

How can we seriously consider such a question? How can we still be this naive, this clueless, as to the nature of the enemy in our midst?

Was it murder? My God! What are we becoming? Are we now going to change our very vocabulary to suit our most recent - and most dangerous - immigrants?

To pose this as an either/or question presumes that there are two possible answers. And to make that preposterous presumption is to denigrate everything we stand for.

Yes, Roger, the leftists denigrate everything we stand for.

Obama Touts Housing Plan as Markets Continue Decline

President Obama laid out his $275 billion federal housing bailout yesterday. The plan seeks to give incentives to lenders to modify mortgages and may give bankruptcy judges more power to force "cram downs" on mortgage balances.

Michelle Malkin has a post, with photos, of yesterday's anti-entitlement protests in Arizona against Obama's "massive housing entitlement."

But check the Wall Street Journal's piece, "Some Americans, Underwater but Ineligible, Are Riled Up":

President Barack Obama's new foreclosure-prevention plan is already sparking outrage from some Americans who won't qualify for federal aid -- and from those who resent having to foot the bill for those who do ....

The housing plan, which President Obama outlined Wednesday in Phoenix, will allow homeowners who have little or no equity to refinance their homes, something that has been nearly impossible to do under current rules. It also establishes standards for government-subsidized loan modifications for borrowers in subprime loans and endorses a provision that would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal on primary residences.

While real-estate professionals applauded the refinance provisions, which the White House says could help four million to five million homeowners, lots of borrowers wouldn't be eligible. For example, the refinance provision is limited to borrowers whose mortgages are owned or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies.

That essentially shuts out wealthy borrowers who would like to refinance but can't because they own expensive homes financed with so-called jumbo mortgages, which are too large to be owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Steve Rosenberg, a 44-year-old institutional stock broker in Chicago, has been trying to refinance his $815,000 option adjustable-rate mortgage for months. But his bank is requiring him to put an additional $150,000 of equity into his home, something he is reluctant to do because his income has been cut in half over the past year. For jumbo borrowers, he said, the government's message is, "You're on your own." Mr. Rosenberg saw little consolation in the president's initiative. "The only recourse I will have is a bankruptcy judge."

Congress has endorsed a provision that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify all types of loans. The White House's proposal would limit such write-downs to existing mortgages under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan limits.

Some borrowers in hard-hit markets say they also are excluded. That is because the foreclosure-mitigation plan allows borrowers with little or no equity to refinance a first mortgage for up to 105% of the property's current market value. For some affluent borrowers heavily underwater in markets like California, that isn't enough. "We can afford to make our payments, so no one is going to help us," said Jill Wong, who has watched the value of her Modesto, Calif., home drop to around $350,000, from the $605,000 she paid four years ago. That wiped out her 20% down payment and has left her with a mortgage that has a 125% loan-to-value ratio.

I'm in the Southern California market, and I'll be looking to refinance next year. We'll see what happens, but today's Los Angeles Times reports that "Southern California Home Prices Fall to 2002 Levels."

More reports from the housing front later, dear readers ...

Far-Left Liberaltarianism

Stephen Green offers a comprehensive analyis of "liberaltarianism" at Pajamas Media.

Recall that I have my problems with this confused ideological position (here and here), for various reasons. But Green offers a good first-cut objection to liberaltariansim for any person of good moral standing:

There’s a wing of libertarianism so completely isolationist, it was against even toppling the Taliban in direct retaliation for 9/11. Those people probably do belong with the Blame America First, Last, and Always crowd on the far left of the Democratic Party.

I started reading about all of this liberaltarian gobbledigook at Mark Thompson's League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It's clear to me that the shift to liberaltarian positions is simply the path of least resistance to those who are embarrassed by their previous conservative advocacy or a sign of a desire to be on the "hip" side of the current popular culture moment. Either way, all of this is intellectually incoherent and morally bankrupt.

It's made for some great blogging, so I shouldn't complain in that sense.

Islamist Decapitation and Western Apologists

The intensity of the leftist attacks on my coverage of the beheading of Aasiya Hassan was heavier than usual (here and here).

The notion that Aasiya Hassan's husband was not in fact a moderate, and that he murdered his wife according to ancient Muslim culture and tradition, puts the lie to left's claims that Islam is just another religion - culturally equivalent - and that conservatives are "racist" by identifying Muslims as a clear and present danger to national security on the basis of their beliefs. This backlash illustrates anti-Americanism through and through, and the left's pushback on this story just makes the entire case that much more significant for the debate over creeping Islamization of the West.

Mark Stein, among the best of commentators on the issue, notes that the American press has refused to cover this story accurately, and only one Canadian reporter was willing to break from the mass-media's standard story line (see the Toronto Star, "Man charged in Beheading").

Steyn cuts to the key issue in this debate on Muzzammil Hassan's Islamic "moderation" and the left's claim that this was patriarchic domestic violence:

Spousal murder is not unusual. Beheading your wife is. If Muzzammil Hassan decapitated his as an Islamic ritual, then his entire professional life — Mister Moderate Muslim — was a lie.

I'm reading right now Timothy Furnish at the Middle East Quarterly, "Beheading in the Name of Islam," where he notes that "Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings."

Knowing this, it's simply impossible to take people like Melissa McEwan or Repsac3 seriously. These are the left's useful idiots of Islamic terror.

Indeed, when we watch an actual Islamic ritual beheading, the notion of comparing Asiya Hassan to case of "routine" domestic violence against women in the U.S. seems frankly evil.

See, for example, "Valentines Day Al Shabab Style (Beheading)," at Jawa Report - and be hereby notified:

EXTREME CONTENT WARNING. DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO ON A FULL STOMACH. NOT FOR THE EASILY UPSET!!!

Note: The beheading is reported as originally taking place last October. See, Jihad Watch, "Muslims Behead Christian Convert From Islam in Somalia."

Also, "Somalia: Christian Aid Worker Beheaded for Converting From Islam," and "Brutal Terror Group Seeks Power in Somalia."

The Catch-All Christianist Smear

Readers certainly know where I stand regarding the political disaster of today's Democratic-left.

It's bad enough to deal with the widespread moral bankruptcy and progressive nihilism of today's leftists, but as well it's the utter intellectual dishonesty of these people that's like a moldering filler of waste on top of the long-fetid ideological corpse below. Sometimes the relativist backlash and evil smears against conservatives are enough to drive people of good moral standing off the web, and if that doesn't do it, threats of intimidation or outright censorship will form the next steps of the left's campaign of death to right and wrong.

What's getting me going is E.D. Kain's de facto endorsement of Andrew Sullivan's all-purpose attack on conservatives as "Christianists." Sullivan, as many know, deploys the "Christianist" attack on traditionalists as an attempt to reclaim the moral high-ground from alleged extremists who have purportedly hijacked the moral debate on the right. As R. Andrew Newman notes, "Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist." As such, Sullivan and others who use the term have a ready wedge of repudiation and marginalization for traditionalists who stand in the way of the postmodern radical agenda, on gay marriage especially, but also any other policy associated with Bush administration backers and cultural conservatives, from coercive interrogations to race relations.

The smear of Christianism is now a catch-all attack on anyone of faith who rejects Sullivan's moral bankruptcy, his policy hysteria, his total hypocrisy on any and all subjects, and frankly, his own assumed universal standard of the acceptable for anyone with whom he disagrees. Yesterday, Sulivan denounced global warming skeptics as "Climate Christianists," as if there's the slightest possibility of such a thing.

This man is a nutcase first and foremost, and as Victor Davis Hanson argued the other day, it's a wonder that people still take this guy seriously. But they do. Time Magazine just included Sulivan's Daily Dish among its list of "Top-25 blogs," although Sullivan rightly ranks up there with Daily Kos as one of the "Most Overrated Blogs" on the web.

In any case, for reasons that I've discussed before, E.D. Kain has sold out to the dark side. He's abandoned the intellectual rigor of neoconservatism to join up in the moral wasteland of "postmodern conservatism" and "liberaltarian" advocacy. In doing so, he's increasingly twisting himself into knots of Gordian scale and slowly but surely reducing his arguments to the most banal pedestrianism of the ideologically confused.

Check out this passage, for example, from E.D.'s post, "Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate":"

Opponents of gay marriage have adopted faux-conservative positions and adopt religious arguments in place of legal ones, and so within the American legal system any conclusions they draw are false. A better tact for conservatives to take would be to evaluate social harm on a civilizational level - not simply the institution of marriage, but the larger society - and to realize that preserving our civilization, which is by nature one of continued traditions and continuous social progress, entails embracing gays into the mainstream through the institution of marriage. Nothing “normalizes” an outcast sub-culture like the suburbs, two cars, three kids and a mortgage.

The point of conservatism is to preserve the stability of the social order, and the only way to do this is to put out the fires of the culture wars, to take the war out of it altogether, and tackle each issue on a cultural rather than political level. The problem with politicizing the culture wars is that they become self-serving and cyclical–a sort of beaurocracy [sic] of ideas. This is why the GOP is ostensibly the party of cultural conservatism and yet never achieves any of the cultural reforms it promises. This is a political tact, not a religious one, and is ironically as much an affront to religious voters as to anyone else.

Where to begin, as they say?

Well, first of all, be sure to check the whole post, which begins as a really rank attack on Mormons (and even E.D.'s relaxing some of claims in a later post as a result of some pushback).

In any case, this notion that conservatives have mounted religious arguments in place of legal ones is bogus. E.D. provides no links, so it appears he's directing his assualt on truly religious organizations like the Family Research Council, and the like, who naturally advance a political-morality of traditionalism. But on purely political, non-religious grounds we can object to same-sex marriage as a violation of the precepts of conservatism, or classical liberalism, to be precise.

As I have shown in "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," marriage is historically substantiated as an institution that is fundamentally and essentially procreative and regenerative. That is, men and women marry in a civil legal regime for the elevation of the basic biological union of spouses. As a particular social practice, marriage has always been about the fertile union that serves for the regeneration of society, even in the situation of marriage among a man and women who have no desire to bear children. The foundation of marriage is a civil principle, not religious exclusively, for the consecration and protection of the family unit as a socially recognized partnership for human generation. Marriage, in this sense, is a civic rite that is not interchangeable with other definitions of marriage, for example, as that between two men or two women, because the historical function of the bounding of purpose and social utility is negated and perverted. As with other civic rites, like funerals, marriage is not something that can be just thown open to any combination of people or groups on demand. If it is, it will then not serve as the norm-bounded regime of goodness that it has in the past.

Indeed, as Susan Shell indicates, in "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage:

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman?

But beyond this, E.D.'s not speaking logically or factually when he says a traditional embrace of marriage as between one man and one woman is to elevate "social harm on a civilizational level." In fact, it's precisely the opposite, for if gays - through their increasing campaigns of intimidation and violence - are able to transform society to their definintions and dictates, their wouldn't be much of anything at all about that "civilizational level" that remains. E.D. speaks of conservatism as embracing constant change, as "continuous social progress," but progress can only be an improvement if it builds on the practices and presumptions that the social consensus says need improvement. Any genuine conservative can tell you this, and thus for E.D., his criticism of Christianism is not geunuine. He's ultimately reduced to attacks on marriage traditionalists on religious grounds, and thus his argument's a de facto endorsement of Sullivan's "Christianist" smear, which is to demonize and discredit those with whom he disagrees (E.D.'s effort to distance himself form Sullivan utlimately fails, for as he says, "Used properly, Christianism can be a valid and effective rhetorical weapon").

Lastly, this part about Republicans and cultural conservatives failing to achieve "any of the cultural reforms" they promise is pure hogwash. The most important socio-cultural policy development in the last two-decades is arguably the 1996 welfare reform agenda, which came after years of conservative advocacy for family traditionalism and following the widely-validated attacks on Democratic federal polices that were exacerbating poverty.

We could go into to crime and education as well, as other areas of public policy where conservative ideas and institutions are having a dramatic effect. But the point should be clear by now. E.D. Kain at Ordinary Gentlemen is not only wrong on the facts, but intelletually dishonest. These are slimy, spurious attacks on traditionalists, plain and simple. Wrapping this stuff up in Sullivan-esque anti-Christianism makes all of this even worse, for these attacks by definition endorse a form of argumentation that eschews ideological and prescriptive clarity, but can be rightly regarded as unhinged as well.

As a professor, I would not recommend Andrew Sullivan as one to emulate for intellectual or policy guidance.

On November 7th, a couple days after California erupted in hardline protests against Propostion 8, Sullivan exhorted folks to chill: "I totally understand the anger, hurt and pain now roiling the gay community and our families, especially in California. But it's important to keep our heads ... Calm down. We are not experiencing a massive, permanent backlash." But as this very backlash has indeed started to build, Sullivan has dug in his heels, explicity repudiating his earlier arguments, with a new commentary suggesting that the left's campaign of intimidation has been characterized by "massive peaceful, even joyful, protests."

This, of course, is exactly the modus operandi of the catch-all Christianist smear campaigns.

These attacks are not about seeking truth and justice for the oppressed or disenfranchised. The gay rights community is anything but. These smears are about the delegitimation of a privileged moral community. These attacks take for granted the goodness of heart of traditional communities and seek to coopt conservatives' sense of decency and fairplay in a boomerang effect of inflicted guilt and the repudation of values. That is, if traditionalist are attacked hard enough and long enough they'll cede the moral high ground, and in the wake of this the left can step in and defile these old values - the civil regimes of goodness and human regeneration - with a replacement of gay licentiousness that will work to further breakdown that foundations of American society.

People should have no doubt about the true agenda behind all of this. And as they do, folks of good moral grounding must stand firm. Society will change organically if that's what people want. Revolutionary, violent change is not conservative, but the E.D. Kains and the Andrew Sullivans of this world want to make you believe that they are.