Nationwide Recess Rally: Anti-ObamaCare Protests Around the Country Today

A couple of great articles:

From The Hill, "Health Protesters Plan Saturday Rallies Outside Offices," and Fox News, " 'Tea Party' Organizers Plan Anti-'Obamacare' Rallies Across the Country."

Here's this, from the text of The Hill piece:

Many of the organizers of the anti-tax Tea Party protests are collaborating Saturday for a Nationwide Recess Rally to protest "socialized, government-controlled healthcare" outside members' district offices.

Backed by right-of-center bloggers and conservative groups, the effort calls for demonstrations at noon in each time zone at more than 1,000 congressional offices across the country.

"These events will represent a strong statement that we’ve been pushed to the edge and simply cannot be pushed any further," the nationwide organizers state on the Recess Rally website. "It is at this time that we will also hand deliver a coalition letter to every single congressional office in the country."

Protests are planned outside offices of both Democrats and Republicans, ranging from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who famously answered a town hall protester's comment Tuesday about "Nazi policy" with "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Jim Hoft, who blogs at Gateway Pundit and has been covering many of the protest events in the St. Louis area, told The Hill that the demonstrations are being planned by activists on the local level.

Hoft, who will be outside Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's (Mo.) office for the rally on Saturday, said he believes the protest efforts at town halls throughout recess have been making a difference.

"That's why we want to keep the momentum going," Hoft said. "This isn't about politics — some people say it would be a big defeat for Obama and the Democrats, but that isn't what's important to us in St. Louis.

"We want to defeat this legislation because we believe it's bad for America," Hoft said.

Hoft said more than 2,000 protesters are expected at the Missouri locations. Word about the events has spread through blogs, talk radio and some local news outlets.

Hoft brushed aside the characterization of the demonstrations as a right-wing event. "We're seeing in the polls most of America is against this piece of legislation today," he said. "The people out there who are passionate would include the right."

"If you look at many, if not most, of the state pages on the website - there are no rallies listed so it's hard to comment on something that doesn't appear in many places to be happening," Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine told The Hill. "Of course - this would match the trend we've seen over the last two weeks where the supporters of reform are outnumbering the protesters at town halls across the country. The opposition made a splash at a handful of town halls in the first few days of the recess, but after its tactics -- including hanging members in effigy and the use of Nazi symbolism -- backfired we've seen the opposition recede and supporters of health insurance reform emerge."

Gateway Pundit's report is here, "The Hill Reports on the 1,000 Rallies Planned For Tomorrow ...Update: DNC Slanders Town Hall Protesters!" But check out this, from the Fox report:

If Democratic lawmakers thought all the furor over President Obama's health care plan expressed this month at town hall meetings was dying down, they might be in for a surprise Saturday.

That's when citizens are planning anti-"Obamacare" rallies across the country Saturday in all 435 congressional districts.

And their message is clear: We will not stand for socialized, government-controlled health care.

The same groups who made the "tax tea parties" possible in April are behind this weekend's movement. American Liberty Alliance, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are working with The Sam Adams Alliance, among others, to stage the rallies.

They come as town hall clashes between Democratic lawmakers and protesters of Obama's health care plan have captured national attention. Some Democrats have dismissed those protesters as "mobs" organized by special interests. But many protesters have said they attended the town halls out of genuine concern.

Now they can express their concerns at Saturday's rallies.

"Obviously the idea behind this was to have a unified day for those concerned about government-controlled health care to talk outside their representatives' offices," said Paul Miller, spokesman for The Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based political organization which is one of several groups promoting the event through new media.

They're not kidding about the "new media." See, CNN, "Liberal Bloggers Admit Conservatives Have Upper Hand on Twitter."

See also, USA Today, "Town Hall Meetings Stir More Conservatives to Action."

Image Credit: Nationwide Rally Against Socialized Medicine.

Related: Legal Insurrection, "Throw Out the Democratic Health Care Sponge."

How Left-Elitists See Town Hall Citizens: 'Ill-Informed, Know Nothings Holding the Country Hostage With Total Irrationality'

Here's Ed Morrissey, writing during last year's election, on the long tradition of elite snobbery on the Democratic-left:

Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.

This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party ... That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.

Well, we've been noticing the left's ubiquitous snobbery during the debates over health policy and the town hall meetings. Digby really captures it in her attempted takedown of Rush Limbaugh as a "gasbag":

If you wonder why people are so unbelievably misinformed in this country here's one good place to look ...

People listen to this kind of drivel all day long on talk radio and Fox News. Why should anyone be surprised that they think the government is going to be sending Death Agents to nursing homes to kill old people? ... They are being indoctrinated in idiocy by radical demagogues and for some reason everybody persists in thinking there is no harm in it.

These fatuous gasbags empower the teabaggers and swift boaters and I think we can see the result --- ill-informed, know nothings holding the country hostage with total irrationality.

Plus, here's Steve Benen on Representative Barney Frank's obnoxious response to a kooky LaRouche-Democrat attending his town hall:

There was no defensiveness, and no anger, just someone who knows what he's talking about making someone who doesn't look like a fool.

Matt Yglesias raised a terrific point: "Voters don't have a great deal of knowledge about the issues, or a great deal of interest in acquiring knowledge about the issues. But they are human beings, equipped with our species' excellent ability to read the emotional states of other human beings. If they see a politician acting defensive about his 'side' in an argument, they conclude that this critics are probably on to something. If they see a politicians acting outraged and hitting back fearlessly, they're likely to conclude that he has nothing to apologize for."

Quite right. A low-information voter, with only a passing familiarity with current events, might catch an exchange like this one. Which of the two people in this clip -- the crazy person or Barney Frank -- comes across as credible?

I realize that Frank has the benefit of serving in a safe Democratic seat, in a highly-educated area. Vulnerable Democratic lawmakers may not feel comfortable openly ridiculing random lunatics who ask stupid questions like Frank did.

But the point is, reform advocates can show this kind of confidence and certainty that nonsensical beliefs are nonsensical beliefs.

It's not so much that the woman at the video was a lunatic or not (the fact that LaRouche voters are Democrats doesn't seem to bother leftists searching for something, anything, to help rescue Obama's falling fortures on socialized medicine). No, it's the totally condescending approach Democratic-lefitsts take to those of differing opinions. Benen's citing Matthew Yglesias, who I unveiled a couple of weeks ago as a "true revolutionary socialist expropriator."

Given the nature and stakes of the debate, I don't expect to convince my political opponents that they're elitist in the mold of Vladimir Lenin. Having said that, folks should at least keep an open mind in reading John Goodman's essay on the everyday citizens participating in the recent ObamaCare demonstrations, "Explaining the Town-Hall Protests":

These are a very diverse group of people. Some of them are part of a 40,000-person network of former Obama supporters who are experiencing buyer's remorse. Others are part of various disease networks, including patients concerned about the future of cancer care. There are networks of senior citizens worried about cuts in Medicare and the possible closing of their private Medicare insurance plans. There are Christian conservatives worried about taxpayer-funded abortions and subsidies for euthanasia. And there are an enormous number of people who are simply concerned about their health care.

For the most part, these individuals are not funded or organized by anybody. They really are grass roots. Sure, there may be a few top-down "astroturf" groups and some special-interest groups that are secretly gleeful. But there is no way the kind of spontaneous outpouring we've witnessed could be bought or organized by anyone.

Why are they so angry? The reasons are manifold, but the single biggest reason is the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington. Think about it. For the past seven months a small group of politicians has been meeting behind-closed-doors with powerful special interests to decide whether you will be able to keep your current insurance, where you will be directed to get new insurance and at what price, what fines you and your employer will have to pay if you don't conform, and how they're going to get your doctor to change the way he or she practices medicine. In the process, they never asked you what you thought about anything. If you are not mad about this, odds are you don't understand the situation.

Remember, according to a Fox News poll conducted last month, 84% of Americans rate the quality of their insurance as "excellent" or "good." When they voted for Mr. Obama for president, they thought "universal care" meant helping some unfortunate Americans obtain insurance they cannot otherwise afford. Not once did candidate Obama say he was going to make changes that affected them and their health care. In fact, he promised the opposite.

Read the whole thing at the link.

And if leftists still aren't convinced, I'll simply recommend that folks read some of the latest polling results, for example, "Faith in Obama Drops As Reform Fears Rise: Health-Care Effort Is Major Factor, Poll Finds." And it's not a bunch of "ill-informed, know-nothing" Limbaugh ditto-heads either. See Greg Sargent, "Major Factor In Obama’s WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals." (Via Memeorandum.)

Obama the Anti-Bush: Er, How's That Working Out For You?

I'm having fun today picking on the airheads at Firedoglake, so let's continue with Eli's post, "The Anti-Bush, Or Bush Lite?"

Almost three years ago, way before Barack Obama was even the Democratic nominee, Michael Tomasky wrote a column titled "Obama the anti-Bush," presciently predicting that Obama's bipartisany oppositeness to The Worst President Ever would be a huge asset should he run for president. A year later, Paul Krugman even more presciently referenced that same column while exhorting Democrats to be more like Bush ...

I guess Krugman warned Dems not to play nice and succumb to the false allure of "bipartisanship' ... they should, in a word, be "Bush-like."

So how's that working out for you guys? Not so great, eh?

Here's Eli:

Obama has shown little fire and little urgency, standing on the sidelines while Blue Dogs and Republicans stall Dawn Johnsen and whittle his campaign initiatives down to nubs. On healthcare, his support for the public option is fickle and unconvincing: He says he wants the public option, he prefers the public option, yet he was perfectly fine with letting Max Baucus stall it so that the teaturfers could turn Democratic town halls into armed madhouses. He made it very clear that he's willing to jettison the public option to pass something he can call healthcare reform, and backtracked (slightly) only when the Progressive Caucus refused to roll over as planned ...

President Obama took office at a moment of great risk and great opportunity, with the winds of recession and broken government in his face, and popular support and huge congressional majorities at his back. The situation was tailor-made for a president who is the Anti-Bush on policy and Bush Lite on politics, who would battle to roll back everything Bush did wrong. What we got was President Broder, who values bipartisanship above all else, and still believes that the party that drove America off a cliff is worth listening to. How's that working out for us?

Not so great, it turns out. Responding to Krugman's latest whiney essay this morning, the New York Times has published some letters to the editor, "Unease About Obama, From Liberals":

To the Editor:

Re “Obama’s Trust Problem” (column, Aug. 21):

Thank you, Paul Krugman, for so perfectly expressing the feelings of this progressive. I defended Barack Obama, despite his relative inexperience, during the primaries because I believed that his open style of governance was the best route to sound policy. I didn’t expect that this approach would result in the almost complete abandonment of core commitments, whether it was about torture, habeas corpus or health care.

Sadly, I am becoming edgy about how deeply he holds those commitments. While I won’t switch sides, in 2012 I will be far less willing to devote time and money to the Obama campaign than in 2008. I don’t think I will be alone in this resistance. At a minimum, I will be looking for a display of personal integrity and respect for all the progressives who were his deepest and most loyal supporters. It is indeed time for change.

Martha Holstein
Chicago, Aug. 21, 2009

*****

To the Editor:

Difficult times require strong leaders willing to act with courage and conviction — in short, to lead.

Barack Obama the candidate was charismatic, intoxicating and destined. President Obama has been cautious, compromising, even pusillanimous.

Presidential elections test likeability. Presidencies test leadership. We shall see.

Robert Ouriel
Los Angeles, Aug. 21, 2009

There are three more letters at the link.

See also, Greg Sargent, "Major Factor In Obama’s WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals," and Glenn Greenwald, "Has Obama Lost the Trust of Progressives, as Krugman Says?" (Via Memeorandum.)

And to answer Greenwald: That's a big, duh, at this point ...

Image Credit: TrogloPundit.

WTF is Wee Wee'd Up?

Neo-Neocon's on the case, "Let's Not Get Wee-Wee'd Up":

And now for the official word on the origin of the expression:

“It’s a phrase I use,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today, hesitating at his press briefing to offer a physical demonstration of the phraseology.

“Let’s do this in a way that’s family friendly,” Gibbs said. “I think ‘wee-weed up’ is when people get all nervous for no particular reason …. Bedwetting would probably be the more consumer-friendly term for it,” the press secretary said.

Or even a more mature term for it. I prefer this explanation, myself.

If Gibbs is correct—and I have no reason to doubt that he is—it is still extremely odd for Obama to publicly use a phrase that’s some sort of private joke between him and Gibbs, or between Gibbs and Gibbs’s friends and/or family. To use such a term without explanation as part of a public address is to be strangely tone deaf and unaware.

However, I’m not planning to get all wee-wee’d up about it—except to say, can you imagine what would have happened had Obama’s predecessor said such a thing?

You know, when I watch President Obama strutting up to the podium sometimes, he makes it look so natural, like he's down with the brothers getting ready to shoot some hoop. But when we hear these patently dumb inside lines like "wee wee'd up," the truth really starts to come out that Barack Obama's exactly the freaking goober Harvard dweeb that his resume promises him to be. And here's this from Allahpundit:

Two years ago in August the punditocracy thought he was going to lose the primary; last August they thought he was going to lose the election. Very wee-wee, baby. And this August? They’re calling ObamaCare an unholy clusterfark that’s been ineptly pitched to the public and tactically mismanaged by the White House. Who cares if Pelosi and her own majority leader can’t get their story straight about the public option? Remain calm. All is well. Resist the wee-wee at all costs.

Yep, dude's going down. See, "Obama's Big Bang Could Go Bust" (or wee wee), via Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: Also, from Grandpa John's, "Everybody in Washington Gets All Wee Weed Up":

The correct phrase is actually 'we weed up.' In Harvardese Ebonic parlance this means 'we really get stoned.'

Around the Harvard campus one often hears a conversation such as this:
"Yo, Dog."

"What up, Homeboy?"

"We weed up, bee-otch."

"Word to yo mutha!"
Obama is informing us that everybody in Washington is stoned to the max during late August and early September.

TrogloPundit Gets Results!

Check out Lance over at TrogloPundit, "When you think of blind blogospherical hostility along ideological lines, what’s the first name that springs to mind?"

Well, Troglo, of course!

The dude's cited at Pew Research, "Health Care Shouting Moves to Blogs":

The angry partisan wrangling that permeated mainstream media coverage of the health care debate also raged in the blogosphere last week as the issue dominated the online conversation.

Supporters and opponents of President Obama's health care reform goals faced off online, with each side accusing the other of being dishonest and manipulating facts. Liberal bloggers charged that conservatives were spreading fear and falsehoods to weaken support for health care reform while conservatives asserted that liberals were hiding their real goals and were only interested in promoting a government-dominated system.

Polarizing commentary is often a part of social media's attention to current news events. Over the past few months, other hot-button political issues that have led to intense partisan arguments include the debate over torture, Obama's economic stimulus package and the resignation of Sarah Palin as governor of Alaska.

Okay. Yeah, yeah. What about Troglo? Oh, here:

Among bloggers, most of the hostile debate over health care last week referenced two controversial newspaper articles.

The first was a July 24 story in the New York Post which generated increased attention this past week. In an article titled "Deadly Doctors: O Advisors Want to Ration Health Care," former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey, also a leading opponent of Bill Clinton's health care reform drive in the 1990's, asserted that some of Obama's advisors should not be trusted with important health care decisions. McCaughey argued that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, believes in rationing health care and that doctors should look past the interests of their patients to consider society as a whole instead, thus denying coverage to senior citizens and those with disabilities.

Conservatives echoed many of McCaughey's concerns ...

The second story was by Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein. On Aug. 7, Pearlstein claimed that conservative leaders and their followers opposed to health care reform were promoting misleading and disingenuous attacks.

Liberals agreed.

"His piece is probably the best counter to much of the Republican and right-wing spin out there," declared Joe Campbell at 2parse. "He chooses here not to defend health care reform against authentic conservatives or against fiscally conservative objections -- but only against those extreme views that are taking hold in the imaginations of those inclinded to be opposed to Barack Obama's success."

"The blatant and not-so blatant sabotage that's happening in our country today regarding health care reform is nothing short of criminal," added Kevin Charnas."

Conservatives saw the piece differently.

"As per usual the left want to shut everyone else up and end all discussion, or criticism of their ideas and desires," posted blogger One More Middle Aged White Guy.

"Steven Pearlstein, writing a column in today's Washington Post that is so atrocious you can almost hear the human refuse squishing up through the keys on his keyboard," assessed Lance Burri at TrogloPundit.

There you go!

TrogloPundit! International man of blogospheric renown!

Democrats Host Few Traditional Town Halls During August Recess: Henry Waxman Holds 'Secret' Climate Change Forum at UCLA

The video clip was just uploaded from Representative Henry Waxman's cap-and-trade town hall at UCLA today. At about 30 seconds, you'll see my friend Jonathan Wilson speaking into the camera:

But check this out: Just as Fox News reports that "Democrats Host Few Traditional Town Hall Meetings During August Recess," Representative Waxman has come under fire for holding a "secret" climate-change forum and for cancelling a town hall event.

The event announcement is a bit restricted, "Climate Change Forum: Creating Security & Prosperity for the 21st Century":

REGISTRATION IS NOW CLOSED: Seating will be limited only to those who registered via the UCLA RSVP site and received a confirmation or wait-list notice will be admitted. Individuals on the waitlist or walk-ups can not be guaranteed seats. This is a UCLA-sponsored event only. Only those who have registered with UCLA will be admitted.

Here's UCLA's press release, "US Rep. Waxman, state Sen. Pavley plan climate change forum at UCLA": "The event is at capacity and there is limited seating for news media. R.S.V.P. required." (Or, "general public keep out"!)

And as Ari David notes in, "A Funny Thing Happened On My Way To a Town Hall Meeting":

I found out that one had to RSVP to the event to reserve a space ... I called his office and asked to be put on the list. A staffer told me about the ticketing process, and lo and behold the reservation system was not even being handled by Henry Waxman’s office but out of California State Senator, Fran Pavley’s website. How odd, the headliner, Waxman, is keeping access to the event focusing on his landmark energy bill hidden behind the opening act of a rather anonymous State Senator. I wonder why? ...

Next, I went to Senator Pavley’s website to follow the RSVP instructions for the event and instead of just having an online page to confirm that I am coming, the page took an “application” for the event and requested certain data about me in the “required fields” such as name, email address, organization, position in the organization and (not required) phone number.

I filled this all in and the page gave me a message that my application was being processed and I would hear back from them shortly.

Ok, so minus salary information and my SS# this was equal to the amount of information I gave on my first credit card application ....

There are many issues at play here. One is that the most powerful elected official from the LA area is either afraid of or smart enough not to face his voters after doing his best to wreck their lives with his two latest pieces of legislation. Another is transparency. When the Democrats took over Congress after the 2006 elections, Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” of the culture of corruption. This theme was repeated when Obama took office and promised a “new age of transparency and government accountability.”

Some accountability this is.

Passing thousand page bills in the middle of the night that no one has or could read, rushing the bills through by claiming how urgent they are and then taking a couple days vacation to find the right photo opportunity for the signing… If anything this is the least transparent and most opaque government American’s have had in generations. We have no idea what the Cap and Trade and the health care bills will actually contain once they are written – other than a bunch of horrible things that will make our lives harder and cost us more money.

Plus, it turns out another event was planned for this evening. See, "Citizens to Host Town-Hall Meeting in Lieu of Representatives, Senators":

A group of young people will host a citizen-based town hall meeting Friday at 7:00PM at UCLA, in Bruin Plaza. The southern California based pro-life group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, was planning a protest for Henry Waxman's town hall set for Friday evening.

However, Rep. Waxman canceled the event for fear of disruption.

"The meeting was canceled almost as soon as it was announced," said Charles Cox, a representative of Survivors. "If our elected officials are too afraid to hold an honest town hall meeting then we will gladly hold one for them."

The group has recently launched a campaign against tax-funded abortion. As part of the campaign they attended another town hall meeting in Alhambra lead by Rep. Adam Schiff last week. After learning that the questions were pre-screened, the Survivors shouted their concerns to the panel. A video of the Survivors at the meeting is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SA3-Uq6-ao.

"HR 3200 contains provisions that are unacceptable to the majority of Americans," said Timmerie Millington, a volunteer with Survivors. "it provides a mandate for abortion on demand paid for by taxpayers through the Public Option."

This is pretty common nationwide, of course. See, "Officials avoiding town hall-style health care forums, " and "Lawmakers’ priority during recess: avoid town halls."

And recall Michelle Malkin's post, "Phoning it in."

What Happened to the Antiwar Movement? Sheehan to Protest Obama at Martha's Vinyard

In another example that radical leftists are all about power, not principle, note how the Democratic Party, the media, and the netroots have all but ignored Cindy Sheehan's drive to revive the antiwar movement. Here's the letter she sent to Byron York at the Washington Examiner":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I read your column about the "anti-war" movement and I can't believe I am saying this, but I mostly agree with you.

The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement.

While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

I have my own radio show, "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," and I was out on a four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or Republicans, but it's about the system.

Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace.

Sincerely,

Cindy Sheehan

Sheehan is responding to York's essay, "For the Left, War Without Bush is Not War at All."

But see this morning's piece, "Sheehan: Pro-Obama Media Want the Anti-War Movement to Go Away":

This week ABC News anchorman Charles Gibson, who extensively covered anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan's demonstrations against George W. Bush in 2005, said "Enough already" when it comes to Sheehan's plans to protest next week at Martha's Vineyard, where President Barack Obama will be vacationing.

Now Sheehan has responded. "I am sure that he just wants me to go away like most of the rest of the anti-war movement has done under the Obama presidency," Sheehan writes at her website.

Actually, we have had a couple of large protests this year, but they're not protests against the "regime" in Washington. They're protests against "the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine." See, "Friday Protest in Los Angeles Against Gaza Assault." It's interesting that International ANSWER, the largest antiwar organization, which spearheaded dozens of nationwide protests against the Bush administration, has pretty much abandoned antiwar protests in favor gay marriage and immigration issues. And even when ANSWER has sponsored a major antiwar rally with President Obama in office, gone are the calls for war crimes trials and death to the "dictator" ... blah, blah, blah ...

Check the photo-essay from Ringo’s Pictures, "Anti-War Protest - Hollywood, CA on March 21, 2009." There are a couple shots of protesters carrying anti-Obama signs, but the post-Bush/Cheney antiwar movement has shifted to a more generic revolutionary agenda that eschews specific attacks on the current administration:

More at Ringo’s Pictures.

Related: And back to the left's double-standards in the war on terror, see Gateway Pundit, "Outrage! ... ACLU and Gitmo Lawyers Accused of Passing Personal Info About CIA Agents to Al-Qaeda ," Kim Priestap, "ACLU and Jihadi Defense Attorneys Expose Under Cover CIA Operatives to the Enemy, and the Washington Post, "Detainees Shown CIA Officers' Photos: Justice Dept. Looking Into Whether Attorneys Broke Law at Guantanamo."

Added: USA Today, "Martha's Vineyard abuzz about the Obamas" (via Memeorandum).

Need I Say More?

Cross-posted from Vinegar and Honey, "Need I Say More?":

Need I say more?

No, but I will.

President Abraham Lincoln said a lot in his address at Gettysburg, but the one statement that has always gotten my attention was this:
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

The speech, itself, was to honor the fallen of the war, and to dedicate a portion of the land where they had fallen, but it, in a sense, became much more than that, in that the words came to define democracy, itself, and are taken quite seriously by many with the strong conviction that the words meant what they said, and that it would ever be so. However, there are too many who think that they are nothing more than "words, just words," and what a travesty it all has become.

How far we have fallen as a nation, but the flaming fire of that conviction--the conviction that freedom, and the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth-- still burns as brightly as ever in the hearts of most of the citizens of our great country.

That in itself, should give us the determination to stand, even in the face of all adversity.

There's another cartoon at the link.

Say hello to my friend Jan in the comments. She's a great blogger and I love her analysis!

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Goverment.

Ta-Nehisi Coates on Obama and Progressives

After citing Paul Krugman's angry repudiation of President Obama for selling out progressives, Ta-Nehisi Coates has this:

I don't quite understand why progressives would feel punked. Perhaps, I'm just a cynic but I voted for Obama in the primaries, because I thought he was most likely to beat John McCain--not because I thought he was to the left of Hillary Clinton. Obama always struck me as a very talented and cerebral politician, with a left-ish bent. Again, maybe I'm a cynic, but his flip-flops don't really surprise. Isn't this what politicians do?

And Ta-Nehisi adds this regarding the ObamaCare debacle:

I have no idea what will happen, ultimately. Moreover, I'm not sure that most voters are bothered by any of this. still, it this whole escapade smacks of Obama being too clever by half--of an Obama who can't get over his own high-mindedness and holds out the bipartisan spirit as a kind of fetish, a gimmick. It's all so unserious.

Voters not bothered. Unserious.

Right.

That's why the Washington Post reports:

Public confidence in President Obama's leadership has declined sharply over the summer, amid intensifying opposition to health-care reform that threatens to undercut his attempt to enact major changes to the system ...

But, of course, bipartanship is "a kind of fetish."

Image Credit: The People's Cube.

Court Expected to Send Rifqa Bary Home to Near-Certain Death

World Net Daily has a report, "Christian Girl Begs State: Don't Let Them Kill Me! Judge Decides Fate of Honor Student, Cheerleader Who Fled Muslim Parents":

A young Christian runaway in foster care awaits her hearing tomorrow when Florida authorities will decide whether she will be forced to return to her Muslim parents – whom she says will kill her for converting to Christianity.

Also, Fox News is reporting, "Court Expected to Send Runaway Teen Home Despite Muslim Honor Killing Fears":

A 17-year-old girl who fled to Florida after converting from Islam to Christianity will almost certainly be forced to return home to Ohio, experts say, despite her fears that she will become the victim of an honor killing for abandoning her parents' faith.

Rifqa Bary, who hitchhiked to an Ohio bus station earlier this month and took a charter bus to Orlando, remains in protective custody with Florida's Department of Children and Families. A judge is expected to rule Friday on the jurisdiction of the case, but several legal experts contacted by FOXNews.com say the girl is bound to be sent back to Ohio.

The Fox piece interviews Phyllis Chesler:

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York, said she believes Bary will be in danger if she is sent back to her parents.

"Anyone who converts from Islam is considered an apostate, and apostasy is a capital crime," Chesler wrote FOXNews.com. "If she is returned to her family, if she is lucky, they will isolate her, beat her, threaten her, and if she is not 'persuaded' to return to Islam, they will kill her. They have no choice."

Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said the tradition of such slayings is not fully understood by most Americans, including those in law enforcement.

"She escaped from her family's brutal tyranny and shamed her family further through public exposure," Chesler said. "Muslim girls and women are killed for far less."

Here's what Phyllis wrote at her blog yesterday:

The mainstream American media simply refuses to cover the Islamification of the West. Publishers run scared when I mention this as a possible next book title of mine. Newspapers are reluctant to cover honor killings or attempted honor killings in America at all, or in an accurate and informed way. If and when they write about jihadist attacks against the West or honor killings in America, the information is often buried on a back page or is, amazingly, biased against the victim and/or sympathetic towards the killer–yes, even if he has confessed. Yes, even if his victim or victims are also people of color born into the Muslim faith.

Apparently, the victims win no sympathy even if they, too, have also been born in formerly colonized or “occupied” countries, are currently also immigrants of color, or Muslims. What matters is only who the perpetrator is. Muslim-on-Muslim crimes, including genocide, do not count.

As yet, I cannot find Rifqa’s amazing and important story anywhere in the national mainstream media. I know that Fox is working on a story because they’ve talked to me about the issues this case raises. Am I surprised? Not really. There was either no or very little coverage of the honor killings that took place in the last decade in North America in Cleveland, St. Clairsville, Toronto, Chicago, Jersey City, British Columbia, Scottsville, Ottawa, Toronto, Dallas, Atlanta, Oak Forest, Alexandria, Buffalo, Kingston, Canada, Roslyn. You may read about some of these honor killings in my study and in my many articles at this blogsite.

What is really going on?

The guiding, hypnotic template is Israel versus the Palestinians. The actual aggressors are seen as innocent, misunderstood, and noble, their real victims are seen as provocative, rebellious, evil or mentally ill–especially if they dare to fight back, run away, or expose the truth of the matter.

The Israelis are “Nazis” perpetrating a new “Holocaust” against the Palestinians. In the case of the incredibly brave Rifqa Bary, we now have a victim of a potential honor killing trying to save her own life–and she is being portrayed as “mentally ill” or as a liar. I am told that she is being characterized in the local Ohio media as unstable while her father is being portrayed as loving and caring.

See also, Jawa Report, "Extremist Ohio mosque becoming focus of Rifqa Bary custody dispute."

And from Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs:

* "Rifqa's Day in Court."

* "Terrorizing Rifqa Bary: Media Crimes and Misdemeanors and Immorality."

* "The Media Puts Rifqa and those trying to help her on trial: Orlando Sentinel Shills for Islamic Misogynists and Rifqa Bary's Promised Honor Killers, Continues to Prints their lies."

* "Rifqa Bary Before her Escape: Beatings, Brutality, Subjugation."

No Apology Needed: Ambinder is Right About Left's 'Gut Hatred' of George W. Bush

Andrew Card, former chief of staff in the first George W. Bush administration, has repudiated former DHS secretary Tom Ridge's claim that color-coded terror alerts were politically motivated:

“We went over backwards repeatedly and with great discipline to make sure politics did not influence any national security and homeland security decisions,” former White House chief of staff Andy Card told POLITICO. “The clear instructions were to make sure politics never influenced anything.”

Check the article for the full story. The Card quotation is provided for context. What's more interesting is the related intra-leftist debate over Marc Ambinder's claim that the radical left's skepticism of the terror alerts was based on "gut hatred of President Bush."

Marcy Wheeler, at Firedoglake, hammered Ambinder, saying:

Ambinder's lame explanation for why we all knew the terror alerts were bullshit but he didn't is particularly atrocious for two reasons.

First, he relies on a stereotype--the activists motivated solely by their gut hatred of George Bush--to avoid reflecting on why normal people relying on simple empiricism had access to truths that journalists somehow couldn't access.

But then there's the stereotype itself, the activists motivated solely by their gut hatred of George Bush. Accepting for a moment the totally bullshit premise that all of the people who believed the terror alerts were bogus hated Bush and were motivated soley by their hatred of Bush--accepting that false premise as true--how do you think those "activists" got their gut hatred of George Bush? Were they all birthed with it?

Glenn Greenwald, unsurprisingly, jumped on the no-Bush-hatred bandwagon:

Ambinder's belief that there is nothing other than blind "Bush hatred" that could have justified such a belief -- and his accompanying self-defense that journalists like him had no way of knowing any of this -- is patently false.

The timing here is crucial. Ridge claimed that terror alerts were manipulated during the general election of 2004, when G.W. Bush was running against Democrat John Kerry. So there's something of a chicken-egg problem, and it's easily resolved. Leftists hated Bush well before the 2004 election. It's rather funny now that leftists would use Ridge's book as "evidence" that they were right about the administration "manipulating people's perceptions of fear and terror," since Secretary Ridge was also certainly hated as one of the Evil Bush-Cheney Nazi Administration's henchmen. In fact, we have it from none other than Firedoglake's own "Thers" that the Evil Bush-Cheney Cabal was sent by the devil himself, well before November of 2004:

I remember first encountering the "Irrational Bush Hatred" thing back during the Great Run-Up to War in 2002. I was at first baffled by it, being younger and, happily, less acquainted with the twisty backwards-logic of the wingnut reptile mind. There was always a certain inverted genius about the accusation. Because I did hate George W. Bush! But it was nothing personal. Strictly business. See, I thought, correctly, as it emerged, and as indeed was absurdly easy to figure out at the time, that George Bush was making up ridiculous crap in order to sucker the nation into a disastrous war that would get a lot of people killed for no sane reason. It seemed to me, not unreasonably, that someone who would do such a thing was kind of an asshole. And hence I concluded that George W. Bush was an utter asshole, as were his advisers, cronies, Sith-lords, sycophants, and Internet Fan-Base. They were all crazy assholes. And they still are!

Note also, as we can see in the Zombietime photo above from 2003, that visceral hatred of President Bush - uniformly accompanied by death threats - was a constant from the earliest days of the administration.

What's also interesting is that Ambinder, in his apology for using the "gut hatred" line, admits that journalists are natural allies to the nihilhist netroots bloggers:

It was wrong to use the phrase "gut hatred." Had I spent more time thinking about the post, I would have chosen a different phrase. And I should have ... Though American politics has never been beanbag and it has never been nice, for political journalists, our not calling out Republicans on these tactics -- not calling them strikes, as they were definitely within the strike zone -- was our deepest failing.

Isn't that fascinating? Two blog posts, one at Firedoglake, the home of the hysterically dishonest "Hammering" Jane Hamsher, and one by Glenn "Sockpuppet" Greenwald, and Ambinder offers an epic mea culpa? That's really too much.

Ambinder was right in the first place, and he should have stuck to his guns. The left hates Bush. Indeed, leftist ideology is an ideology of hatred. Ambinder should know this as a "journalist," but a quick Google search would have helped. Charles Krauthammer offered his psychological diagnosis of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in 2003. Dr. Sanity wrote a retrospective of Bush hatred in 2004, "The Psychology of Bush Hatred." She links to a Virginia Postrel piece, eviscerating Maureen Dowd, Bush-hater extraordinaire, in July 2004: "The Voice of Fear."

But note this from Peter Berkowitz's article, "The Insanity of Bush Hatred":

Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

And Berkowitz is specifically describing the vicious hatred that had its orgins well before anyone in the administration even contemplated manipulated color-coded terror alerts. It's a shame that Marc Ambinder would now deign to elevate the denials of the very same Bush haters to a level of rational and respectable discourse.

Lockerbie Bomber Gets Hero's Welcome in Libya: Victims' Families Outraged at Mass Murderer's Release; White House 'Deeply Disappointed' at Injustice

CNN has the story, "Most Families Outraged at Pan Am 103 Bomber's Release":

"I feel sick. I feel depressed and outraged. I mean, I am just heartbroken," said Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora, a 20-year-old Syracuse University music student, was killed in the bombing ... I feared they would do this," she said. "Now that they've made friends with Gadhafi ... the Western countries want to give him everything that he wants, appease him. He wanted [Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al] Megrahi, they are rushing Megrahi out; they aren't even giving this a day. And the tiny little shred of justice we had is gone."

And, check the CBS interview with victims' families, as well as the Fox clip below of the extended cheers and applause on the ground in Libya:

Plus, from Fox News, "White House: U.S. 'Deeply Regrets' Release of Lockerbie Bomber." And more from Fox, "Lockerbie Bomber Freed From Prison on Compassionate Grounds."

Early Post-Mortems on ObamaCare: Don't Forget the Tea Parties!

Folks are already discussing what went wrong with the Obama administration's healthcare agenda. Carrie Budoff Brown's piece at the Politico suggests that President Obama bears the brunt of the blame:

What went wrong? Bearing the brunt of some of the criticism is Obama himself – once viewed as a sure-fire closer, now facing grumbling on the left for letting critical months slip by without a constant, coherent and consistent argument. Think “change” and “hope” from the campaign, catchwords that Obama practically trademarked. In this fight, his key messages have shifted, from fixing health care to fix the economy, to “stability and security” for people who already have insurance.

And this week, he returned to an argument Democratic strategists said shouldn't be part of the pitch this year – trying to convince Americans they have a “moral obligation” to help people without insurance, a discredited argument from the reform effort under President Bill Clinton.

“I don’t think the messaging has been very clear,” said Celinda Lake, a leading Democratic pollster on health care. But more so, she added, “the campaign to disseminate the messaging has not been as relentless and organized as it needs to be.”

This is good, up to a point. At the video, Mitt Romney argues that the administration not only lost the message from the beggining, but outsourced policy to the hardline leftists in the Democratic Congress. Totally abandoning any effort at bipartisanship, Nancy Pelosi's forces have sought a socialized health bill that the public was guaranteed to reject.

What's interesting in both Budoff Brown and Romney's discussion is the complete omission of the effectiveness of grassroots opposition. In "ObamaCare and the Tea Party Effect," I argued that "grassroots conservative activism" was having a significant influence in shifting public opinion against Democratic healthcare proposals. At the time of publication, public opinion surveys rarely asked specific questions on the effect of tea parties and town halls. Polling shows now, however, that right-wing protests have had a dramatic impact in shifting the debate in this country - and in handing the administration a major domestic policy defeat.

See, USA Today, "Poll: Health Care Views Take Sympathetic Tilt."

See also, "Zogby: Obama Hits Record Low in Poll":

President Barack Obama's popularity has plummeted to a record low, with just 45 percent of voters now approving of his performance, according to the latest Zogby International poll.

Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the president's job performance, just 45.3 percent of likely voters say they approve. That compares with 50.5 percent who disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

The results are a strong indication that contentious national debate over healthcare reform has taken a major toll on the president's popularity.

Hat Tip: Hot Air, "Oh My: Obama Down to 45% Approval in New Zogby Poll."

Obama's Waterloo on Health Care Reform

Here's President Obama live from the White House with conservative radio host Michael Smerconish:

See The Hill for details, " 'One Way or Another,' Obama Guarantees Reform." Also, the New York Times, "Obama Still Optimistic on Health Care Overhaul."

Meanwhile, leftists are talking as though a defeat on health care would be Obama's Waterloo. ABC News has this, "Obama Ally: Dem Majority Is History If Health Reform Fails." And Mike Soraghan has this, "Left Flexes Muscles on Healthcare Reform."

Plus, Hammering Jane Hamsher gets ugly in, "If Progressive Members of the House Think We’ll Accept Co-Ops As Public Plan, Think Again." To which, William Jacobson responds, "Left-Wing Attack On Obama's 'Health Care Toenail Clippings'." (Via Memeorandum.)

And although he bugs the hell out of me, I love the title of John Avlon's piece, "The Coming Liberal Suicide":

Liberals are in deep denial about the source of the President’s falling poll numbers during this summer’s healthcare debate. They think the problem—perceptions of arrogant over-reaching liberalism—is the cure. It’s the same self-serving mistake that the extremes always make.

President Obama needs to depolarize the health care debate. He got off-message because he got off-center. Embracing a bipartisan bill that replaces the public-option with a non-profit co-op will not “muddy” the debate but help clarify it. It will not be a retreat but a way forward.

Lyndon Johnson once joked that “the difference between liberals and cannibals is that cannibals don’t eat their friends and family members.” In half-century long history of failed healthcare reforms from Harry Truman on down, liberal cannibalism has been as much to blame for defeats as fear-mongering from the far-right.

Actually, the "fearmongering" is a grassroots political tide of conservative opposition that rightly smells blood. After Obama's health care debacle, look for good things coming on the right of the spectrum. See also, Jay Cost, "Amateur Hour at the White House."

International Officials Launch Gender Inquiry on Caster Semenya

Freaky story from the Los Angeles Times, "Questions Raised About Gender of Winner of Women's 800-Meter Race":

A South African teenager's stunning victory in the women's 800-meter race at the World Championships on Wednesday was only a precursor to the shocking circumstances unveiled afterward.

At least two of the seven runners who lost to Caster Semenya said they are convinced she is not a woman, and track and field's international governing body has launched an investigation into the 18-year-old's gender.

Semenya, a muscular 5 feet 7 inches and 140 pounds, was an unknown before she ran a blistering time at the Africa Junior Championships three weeks ago. She did not speak to media after the race. An interview sheet distributed by the International Assn. of Athletics Federations said "no comment available," and Pierre Weiss, the IAAF's general secretary, appeared in her place at a news conference because officials determined Semenya was unprepared to face a barrage of questions.

Weiss said it could take several weeks to get the results of the investigation, which he said included testing of Semenya in both South Africa and Berlin. Without that evidence, the IAAF could not keep Semenya from running here.

"We entered Caster as a woman and we want to keep it that way," South African team manager Phiwe Mlangeni-Tsholetsane told the Associated Press. "Our conscience is clear in terms of Semenya."

The issue of gender testing is so controversial that the International Olympic Committee suspended widespread gender testing in 1999, reserving the right to do psychological, gynecological and chromosome investigations "if there is a valid suspicion," IOC medical director Patrick Schamasch said in an e-mail.

IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said the international federation began to ask questions about Semenya on July 31, when she ran what then was the fastest time in the world this season, 1 minute 56.72 seconds, at the Africa Junior Championships in Mauritius.

She ran even faster Wednesday, winning in 1:55.45, a time bettered by only a dozen women in history. With 150 meters to go, she turned the race into a rout, leaving defending champion Janeth Jepkosgei of Kenya (1:57.90) and Jennifer Meadows of Britain (1:57.93) far back in second and third.

"I've never seen her [Semenya] before today," Meadows said. "She took the race by storm."

Also, KTLA, "Man or Woman? Officials to Test Gender of 800-Meter Runner."

Plus, "South Africa's Track President Defends Gold Medalist Semenya."

Video Hat Tip: Right Fielders.

Frank Rich on Rachel Maddow Show: 'We Have to Worry About Right Wing Political Violence'

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, for her relentless disinformation and fearmongering, deserves as much condemnation as Contessa Brewer and her leftist gang of propagandists and smear merchants. New York Times columnist Frank Rich appeared on Maddow's show last night. Maddow, referencing Rich's weekend op-ed, compares the gun-toting demonstrators at town halls and at Obama appearances to the assassins emerging out of "the political climate of the 1960s."

In response, Nick Gillespie has this piece at Reason, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Still History's Patsy":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As Matt Welch and Jesse Walker and others at this site have been pointing out, loose analogies between between angry, sputtering citizens at town hall meetings and Nazis street thugs and political assassins are pretty damn lame. As important, they are almost inevitably the result of a strange ideological lesion that precludes inclusion of inconvenient facts. A propos of the above: JFK was not assassinated by a right-wing crank, but by a demonstrably pro-Castro defector to the Soviet Union who tooks shots at a rising right-wing freakazoid not long before shooting the president (yes, Oswald done did it). And, you might remember, that revolutionary (coff, coff) violence that wracked the '60s and early '70s was the result primarily not of out-of-control Barry Goldwaterites but by groups on the left.

Precisely what relevance any of this has to the current moment is far from clear. Maddow seemed most freaked out by a recent Arizona incident in which people toted guns to a rally near where President Obama was speaking. The incident has been revealed (on CNN) as a stunt pulled by radio show host and longtime Libertarian Party activist Ernest Hancock, not the nefarious workings of a secret army of camo-wearing zombies mad over mandatory UNICEF collections ...

More at the link.

Hat Tip: Megan McArdle.

Americans for Limited Government: Heads Should Roll at MSNBC

Americans for Limited Government has issued a demand for the "immediate termination of Contessa Brewer, Toure, Dylan Ratigan" and others involved in the fraudulent August 18 broadcast on the "white racist" threat to President Obama.

Mr. Steve Capus
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Dear Mr. Capus:

On Tuesday, August 18, at 10:45 AM, your network -- with a blatantly racist broadcast -- took the falsification of the news to a dangerous new low. I am writing to you today on behalf of the 400,000 members of Americans for Limited Government nationwide to ask that all involved in this nefarious assault on decency be immediately fired from their jobs.

I am referring, of course, to the MSNBC “news” cast on that morning in which your anchors hysterically raised the specter of impending racial violence -- while carefull y cropping the very video upon which they based their duplicitous charges. Leading audiences nationwide to believe that militant whites were mounting violence against a black President, they deliberately covered up the fact that the individual they were framing was himself African-American.

I could go on with a graphic description of the horrendous misrepresentation foisted on the American people by your anchors and those who worked with them on your distorted reportage, but by now, I am sure that you are well aware of the despicable fraud they perpetrated. Even if you, like most Americans, were not watching MSNBC at the time, you undoubtedly have been apprised of the transgression by now.

Therefore, I will not waste your time or mine regurgitating the facts of the blatant abuse of the public trust. Instead, let me simply get to the vital thrust of this letter:

On behalf of the nearly half million members of Americans for Limited Government – and tens of millions of other equally appalled Americans of all races nationwide -- I hereby demand the immediate termination of Contessa Brewer, Toure, Dylan Ratigan and any and all others involved in any way with the fraudulent “news” that ran in the 10:45AM segment of your August 18 broadcast.

Your network has besmirched the dignity and honor of American people. You have endangered the life of the President of the United States. You have purposely fanned racial tensions. And you have deliberately lied to your own audience.

Failure on your part to act will be proof positive that you, your corporation and the corporation that owns you intended this deception. As such, you can no longer claim to be “press” in any sense of the word but will have crossed the line, becoming a political advocacy organization. That, then, becomes a matter for the FCC and the courts to consider the proper punishment for this gross transgression of the rules of a civil society.

Thank you.

William Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

cc:

Jeffrey Immelt, President and Chairman, General Electric
Phil Griffin, President MSNBC News

See also, Michael Calderone, "ALG to MSNBC: Fire Brewer, Ratigan, Toure" (via Memeorandum).