Obama's Post-American Foreign Policy

From Fareed Zakaria's cover story at Newsweek, "The Post-Imperial Presidency":

If you take just one sentence out, Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan last week was all about focusing and limiting the scope of America's mission in that country. His goal, he said, was "narrowly defined." The objectives he detailed were exclusively military—to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum, and strengthen the Kabul government's security forces. He said almost nothing about broader goals like spreading democracy, protecting human rights, or assisting in women's education. The nation that he was interested in building, he explained, was America.

And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." Here lies the tension in Barack Obama's policy. He wants a clearer, more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares down the vast commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one that is more disciplined even than Bill Clinton's approach to the world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W. Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But America is in the midst of a war that is not going well, and scaling back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified surge—send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down—is his answer to this dilemma. This is an understandable compromise, and it could well work, but it pushes off a final decision about Afghanistan until the troop surge can improve the situation on the ground. Eighteen months from now, Obama will have to answer the core question: is a stable and well-functioning Afghanistan worth a large and continuing American ground presence, or can American interests be secured at much lower cost?

This first year of his presidency has been a window into Barack Obama's world view. Most presidents, once they get hold of the bully pulpit, cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate to grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny, and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Even the elder Bush, a pragmatist if there ever was one, lapsed into dreamy language about "a new world order" once he stood in front of the United Nations. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. A great orator, he has, in this arena, kept his eloquence in check. Obama is a realist, by temperament, learning, and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing the resources to achieve them, and keeping his eyes on the prize.

It's a thoughtful piece, if mistaken in basic thrust. The implication on the cover that President Bush was an imperialist is badly strained, and ideological driven (especially now that Iraq has made oil deals with Russia, China, and other non-American concerns, making the imperialist tag exceedingly hard to sustain). Besides, I do not believe Barack Obama is a realist. U.S. relations with Russia under Obama belie the point. See, "Obama U.S.-Russia Nuke Partnership Belies 'Realist' Foreign Policy Creds."

There are some who thought that Obama broke -- ever so slightly -- from narrow realist pretensions during his Oslo speech, and thus neoconservatives raised the possibility that he might eventually adopt moral clarity as a grounding (rather than apologetic moral relativism). But John Bolton's having none of it:

You have to look at the speech whole, just as you have to look at the man behind the speech whole, and I think that's where he runs into difficulty. This speech in Oslo is filled with some of the most amazing misconceptions about everything from human nature to the role of the United States in the world.

Hmm. Human nature. That's the key focus of the classical realist paradigm, and if Obama's clueless to the lust for power and dominance in the world, his shopworn homilies to restoring trust and respecting international law serve only as preaching to the socialist choir of the global appeasement camp.

Cablinasian!

Dan Collins is da bomb!

From, "The Department of Cablinasian Studies" (via):

If indeed Tiger Woods was attacked by his wife, caught up in her own cultural interpretation of wedlock, with a golf club, then that represents the first time the MSM has reported on a hate crime against a Cablinasian. As deplorable as Scandi-on-Cablinasian violence may be, however, it is fortunate that Tiger Woods is a high-profile enough Cablinasian that this is getting a good deal of press coverage, and raising world-wide consciousness regarding this problem.

Democrats Extend TARP to 2010: Obama Endorses Troubled Asset Fund to Finance Jobs Stimulus!

Skip MacLure's got the dramatic headline, "Underhanded! Democrats Extend TARP To 2010 – Election Slush Fund?" But Keith Hennessey's got the analysis, "The 'Using TARP Funds for Stimulus' Gimmick" (via Memeorandum):

Under current law it is not legally possible to “use” returned TARP funds for a new stimulus proposal. The Administration and its Congressional allies want to describe their proposal this way to make it appear that their new spending does not increase the federal deficit and debt. Even if the TARP law is changed, new government spending is just that, new government spending. No matter what optical gimmicks are created, new spending will increase the deficit and debt.

The TARP law allows up to $700 B to be used for any of several specific purposes:

• buying troubled assets from financial institutions; (§101)
• insuring troubled assets held by financial institutions; (§102)
• foreclosure mitigation efforts; (§109)
• direct assistance to homeowners; (§110)
• or buying or insuring any other financial asset that the Secretary of the Treasury and Fed Chairman agree “is necessary to promote financial market stability.” (§3(9)(B)).

The last bullet is the one we used for direct capital investments to large financial institutions (and auto manufacturers).

Unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies, infrastructure spending, export subsidies, tax cuts, and a whole range of other stimulus ideas are not in this list. Under current law, TARP funds cannot be used for any of these purposes.

The Administration can legally use TARP funds to further subsidize credit for small businesses, through creative use of the above authorities.

Some (many) people are confused by another aspect of the TARP law. The $700 B acts as a revolving fund. The $700 B is a limit on how much can, in total, be spent at any one point in time, but only for the above purposes. In a silly extreme example, Treasury could buy $700 B of troubled assets from Bank A. Suppose the market went up, and those troubled assets were then worth $800 B. Treasury could sell those assets, and the debt held by the public would decline by $800 B. The way the law is written, Treasury could then buy up to another $700 B of troubled assets.

There is therefore no theoretical limit on the total amount of money over time that Treasury can spend for the above listed purposes. There are instead limits on how much can be spent at any one point in time, on how long that authority lasts for, and on how those funds can be spent.

RTWT, at the link.

RELATED: The Hill, "Treasury Extends TARP":

President Barack Obama on Tuesday threw his support behind using some TARP funds to pay for a new jobs bill designed to help small businesses, and Geithner said the improvements in the TARP’s performance put the government in a better position to address the economic and financial challenges faced by the country.

At the Wall Street Journal as well, "U.S. Extends TARP Until October 2010."

Cartoon Credit: Theo Spark.

The Communists Speak: Howard Zinn Documentary to Premiere Sunday on History Channel

I've always thought of the History Channel as a more patriotic version of PBS, but their reputation's in the crapper now, with Howard Zinn's new documentary, 'The People Speak', set to premiere Sunday at the network.

David Swindle offers a concise description:

“The People Speak” is a documentary inspired by Marxist historian Howard Zinn’s notorious A People’s History of the United States. It features Hollywood celebrities and musicians performing historical readings drawn from Zinn’s works. The purpose? To publicize Zinn’s book and its fairly simple message: America is an exploitative, evil force and has been since before it was founded.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Hollywood & Howard Zinn’s Marxist Education Project":

The two most important questions for society, according to the Greek philosopher Plato, are these: What will we teach our children? And who will teach them? Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America’s most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of “social justice.” Parents, beware: This Hollywood-backed Marxist education project may be coming to a school near you.

On Sunday, December 13, the History Channel will air “The People Speak” – a documentary based on Marxist academic Howard Zinn’s capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, “A People’s History of the United States.” The film was co-produced/written/bankrolled by Zinn’s Boston neighbor and mentee Matt Damon. An all-star cast of Bush-bashing liberals including Danny Glover, Josh Brolin, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei, and Eddie Vedder, will appear. Zinn’s work is a self-proclaimed “biased account” of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market, and the military.
Zinn’s objective is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate “change” and nurture a political “counterforce” (an echo of fellow radical academic and Hugo Chavez admirer Bill Ayers’ proclamation of education as the “motorforce of revolution.”) Teachers are not supposed to teach facts in the school of Zinn. “There is no such thing as pure fact,” Zinn asserts. Educators are not supposed to emphasize individual academic achievement. They are supposed to “empower” student collectivism by emphasizing “the role of working people, women, people of color, and organized social movements.” School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of “social struggle.”

Zinn and company have launched a nationwide education project in conjunction with the documentary. “A people’s history requires a people’s pedagogy to match,” Zinn preaches. The project is a collaboration between two “social justice” activist groups, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change. Rethinking Schools recently boasted of killing a social studies textbook series in the Milwaukee school system because it “failed to teach social responsibility.” A Rethinking Schools guide on the September 11 jihadi attacks instructs teachers to “nurture student empathy” for our enemies and dissuade students from identifying as Americans. “It’s our job to reach beyond this chauvinism.” And a Rethinking Schools guide to early childhood education written by Ann Pelo disparages “a too-heavy focus on academic skills” in favor of “social justice and ecological teaching” for preschoolers.

Checking the links, we see, "WAR, TERRORISM AND OUR CLASSROOMS: Teaching in the Aftermath of the September 11th Tragedy":

We need to ask the deep “Why?” questions. Nothing can justify the heinous attacks of Sept. 11. But to unequivocally condemn these attacks does not relieve us of the responsibility to explain them. A photograph from a demonstration in Pakistan that Bob Peterson uses with his students (page 10) urges, “Americans, Think! Why You Are Hated All Over The World!” Several articles in this issue suggest some U.S. policies that have led to such antipathy, especially in the Middle East: U.S. support for anti-democratic regimes, and the overthrow of more democratic ones, like Iran’s Mossedegh in 1953; the tenacity of U.S. support for sanctions against Iraq that have killed hundreds of thousands of children; U.S. arming of Israel and its support of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Beyond such policies, teachers need to engage students in questioning the global economic system. Its relentless emphasis on profit continues to impoverish millions around the world, dislocating cultural patterns and making people receptive to repressive fundamentalisms of all kinds.

This is what the Hollywood left wants taught in our schools.

Readers can see why I get angry and fight the way I do. It's all of a piece, from Hollywood to academe to the White House, these folks are intent on destroying our country.

The communists love it. See Socialist Worker, "ISR guide to The People Speak."

RELATED: Daniel Flynn, at Big Hollywood, "Howard Zinn, Intellectual Moron."

Summit Entertainment to Distribute Polanski's 'The Ghost Writer'

It's not my normal beat, but I did take interest in the news the other day, "Roman Polanski Released to Swiss Chalet for House Arrest." And, "Roman Polanski released to Swiss chalet, greeted by family, media swarm."

It just a weird story all around. With justice never served, Roman Polanski's rape victim is actually speakng out on his behalf, "Roman Polanski’s Rape Victim Samantha Geimer Fights for Him in Court." Plus, "Polanski Waits in Swiss Chalet While His Victim's Lawyer Argues to Drop Case":

Director Roman Polanski is now confined to a chalet in a Swiss resort town, having posted the $4.5 million bail to release him from prison, but the next steps in his criminal case remain undetermined. Yesterday in Los Angeles the wish to have the original charges against him of sexual misconduct dropped was discussed in court, as the lawyer representing his victim, Samantha Geimer, presented arguments in favor of dropping the 32-year-old case, according to an AP report published on CBS2.com.

Geimer, now 39, has made public pleas to abandon prosecution of Polanski. Since his September arrest in Switzerland, extradition to Los Angeles has loomed for the 77-year-old Chinatown director, where he would finally face the sentencing he evaded in 1978. In 2008 an HBO documentary about the case and trial brought to light alleged misconduct on the part of the now-deceased presiding judge, but motions raised in court were stalled because Polanski refused to return to L.A. to appear in court in person as demanded.

Of course he wasn't there yesterday in court for the "lively hearing where appellate justices peppered lawyers and a prosecutor with pointed questions, often interrupting their arguments to raise new issues." No decision about the case was made; the issue continues to be whether the court can dismiss the case with Polanski not present.

And it turns out as well, that despite the public revulsion and outrage, Polanski's latest film is set to hit the big screens. See, "Polanski film gets distributor in U.S.: 'Ghost Writer' will be released by Summit Entertainment." And, "Summit to Distribute Polanski Latest."

For the lowdown on this, see Anthony Paletta, "The Polanski Hypocrisy":

Amid the many reactions to director Roman Polanski's arrest last weekend in Switzerland more than 30 years after he fled the U.S. after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, none have been as strong as those of the international film community. A petition demanding his release has attracted over 100 film-world signatories, including luminaries from Martin Scorsese and Costa-Gavras to David Lynch and Wong Kar Wai.

Reading the petition, you could be forgiven for thinking that the dispute was over some obscure diplomatic codicil. Its principal focus is on the mechanics of the arrest, namely Switzerland's detention of Mr. Polanski on a U.S. request as he was traveling to the Zurich Film Festival. It cites Switzerland's status as a "neutral country" and the "extraterritorial nature" of film festivals. The substance of his guilty plea and the circumstances of the crime receive only glancing mention, in a single line: "His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals."

One would never know that those easily brushed off "morals"—rape and pedophilia—have actually been a central concern of some of the petition's signatories.

Pedro Almodóvar, the daring Spanish director, created a fascinating study of a pedophiliac relationship between a priest and an altar boy in "Bad Education." There's a frank mutual attraction between the characters, but Mr. Almodóvar never leaves any question that their relationship is exploitative at its core, and he makes clear the scars such manipulation can create. If a petition were being circulated for Father Manolo instead of Mr. Polanski, it's doubtful we'd see Mr. Almodóvar's signature on it ....

Still, some film-world names were notable for their absence from the petition. Director Luc Besson refrained from signing it, noting, in an interview with RTL Soir, "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

Hypocrite in Chief: Obama Attacks GOP, Wall Street Special Interests in Weekly Address

I need to remind folks to read Michelle Malkin's, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies. It really helps to have the background of this administration's unprecedented corruption before watch the President Obama's bulls**t weekly address this morning:

The Wall Street Journal has the story, "Obama Urges US Senate To Pass Financial Overhaul Bill."

For a really good flavor of the hypocrisy, see Michelle Malkin, "Obama’s Treasury Secretary: Tax rules for thee, but not for me."

Also, via Michelle, here's a section from Chapter 4 in Culture of Corruption, "Meet the Mess – Inside the Crooked Cabinet":

“Don’t go into corporate America,” First Lady Michelle Obama admonished supporters on the campaign trail. Remember? She extolled the rewards of public service over the material perks of life at a high-powered law firm. She certainly didn’t take her own advice—and neither did her husband’s own attorney general. If he hadn’t pulled out all the stops campaigning for the president, raising money at lavish celebrity events, and offering his strategic and legal advice—and if Eric Holder had an “R” by his name instead of a “D”—he might have served as the perfect poster boy for Mrs. O’s caustic campaign against white-shoe corporate law.

After a quarter-century as a government lawyer, Holder joined the prestigious Covington & Burling business and corporate law firm. He represented a gallery of the Left’s fattest targets in Big Pharma and Big Business, defending them in fraud and discrimination cases that drove progressives mad. Holder has served both his corporate and government masters well—and he has the bank account and stock portfolio to prove it. His salary jumped from under $200,000 as deputy U.S. Attorney General for the Clinton administration to more than $2 million a year as a Covington & Burling senior partner. During 2008, Holder spent countless hours away from his corporate office working for the Obama campaign—raising money, fielding calls, making speeches. “I hope the management committee is going to be real understanding when they see my billable hours this year,” Holder joked to The American Lawyer. It’s an investment, of course, and the law firm will get its political dividends later.

Holder returns to a more modest $186,000 salary as Obama’s attorney general. But parting has its perks, too. The Washington revolving door pays.

Covington & Burling will make a separation payment valued at between $1 million and $5 million, plus a repayment of up to $1 million from the firm’s capital account, plus a retirement plan of up to $500,000. His net worth: $5.7 million. Reflecting on his past eight years raking in the dough and watching him schmooze friends and clients from his “elegant new Manhattan offices,” an American Lawyer profile observed: “Life is good for private citizen Eric Holder, Jr.” President Obama and the missus, such outspoken detractors of climbing the corporate ladder and influence-peddling, were unavailable for comment.

One wonders what the Obamas would say about Holder’s lucrative work for Chiquita Brands International if it had been performed by, say, John McCain’s top lawyer? As chief counsel for the global company, Holder won a “slap-on-the-wrist plea deal to charges that it had paid off” Colombian paramilitary death squads. Liberal critics of Holder point out that he used his influence as a former Clinton Justice Department official to negotiate a sweetheart deal for Chiquita. The company pleaded guilty to illegally doing business with the “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia” or AUC (designated as an international terrorist organization by the State Department in 2001). Chiquita admitted negotiating with and forking over $1.7 million in protection racket money to the guerillas beginning in 1997. AUC terrorists slaughtered thousands of civilians to gain control of Colombia’s banana fields. The company ignored the advice of outside counsel (not Holder or anyone else at Covington & Burling) to stop the illegal payments in 2003:

• “Must stop payments.”
• “Bottom Line: CANNOT MAKE THE PAYMENT”
• “Advised NOT TO MAKE ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT through CONVIVIR”
• “General Rule: Cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly”
• Concluded with: “CANNOT MAKE THE PAYMENT”
• “You voluntarily put yourself in this position. Duress defense can wear out through repetition. Buz [business] decision to stay in harm’s way. Chiquita should leave Colombia.”
• “[T]he company should not continue to make the Santa Marta payments, given the AUC’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization[.]”
• “[T]he company should not make the payment.”

Even after disclosing the payments to the Justice Department in the spring of 2003, Chiquita continued funneling money to the terrorists. According to the Justice Department: “From April 24, 2003 (the date of Chiquita’s initial disclosure to the Justice Department) through February 4, 2004, Chiquita made 20 payments to the AUC totaling over $300,000.” And yet, despite knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law, not a single Chiquita official was prosecuted or jailed. The $25 million criminal fine was written off as the cost of doing business. And, stunningly, the plea agreement forged by Holder and the DOJ succeeded in protecting the identities of the executives involved in the bloody terrorist payoffs.

Putting on the best terrorist defense is a Covington & Burling specialty. Among the firm’s other celebrity terrorist clients: 17 Yemenis held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington & Burling co-authored one of three petitioners’ briefs filed in the Boumediene v. Bush detainee case, and secured victories for several other Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak, which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: “For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen.”

How sweet. One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as “gentle, thoughtful young men” was released in 2005—only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.

The Senate shrugged at the glaring conflict of interest Attorney General Holder presents in handling Gitmo legal issues. Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu, author of Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay, makes the ethical problem plain:

As a senior partner, he undoubtedly had significant input on what kind of charity cases his firm picked up. He surely knew that dozens of lawyers from his firm were among the 500-plus civilian lawyers representing the 244 or so remaining detainees (on top of military-court-appointed defenders). Even now, his Covington colleagues continue to allege rampant torture at Gitmo. They’re fighting hard to have detainees tried through the US court system—essentially given the same rights as US citizens. And their arguments and plans hinge largely on having Holder issue a bad report card.

Recent polls indicate that at least half of Americans disagree with affording the detainees legal rights on US soil. Will they have the same access to Holder’s ears as his former colleagues do?

The White House says that Holder will formally recuse himself from charging decisions and prosecutions affecting any of Covington & Burling’s clients, but he will have unfettered oversight over Obama’s order to close the facility within a year. Moreover, there’s a gaping loophole in the Obama administration ethics rules that will allow Holder to participate in decision-making despite his conflicts of interests if he can show that his participation in a matter outweighs an appearance or actual conflict of interest. If you think Holder’s professional connections won’t have any influence on the outcome of these decisions, I have a Colombian banana farm to sell you.

Among the other eyebrow-raising cases Holder took on at Covington & Burling:

*Signing up to assist then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in a casino license battle in 2004. The state’s gaming board had approved the construction of a disputed casino, overruling the recommendation of the board’s staff. Rank-and-file investigators had qualms over the casino developer’s alleged mob ties and over Blago’s appointment of a crony fund-raiser to oversee the state’s deal-making with the casino. The fund-raiser, Christopher Kelly, turned out to be a business partner of convicted Obama/Blago confidante and real estate mogul Tony Rezko. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Rezko “held an option to lease a hotel site next to the proposed casino site.” Holder held a public press conference with Blago to announce his role as a special “independent” investigator into the matter. The dog-and-pony show produced no report, but Holder and his law firm had contracted to conduct the probe for a tidy $300,000. Somehow, the foul-smelling case slipped Holder’s mind; he failed to mention it in his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

*Forging a massive settlement for Purdue Pharma, manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, with the state of West Virginia in 2004. The state accused the drugmaker of deceptively marking OxyContin as safe and effective for minor pain. The firm’s marketing practices, the state maintained, led to West Virginia users becoming addicted to the drug. State attorney general Darrell McGraw Jr., a Democrat, filed suit. In an article entitled, “Why Eric Holder Represents What’s Wrong with Washington,” liberal columnist David Corn described Holder’s pivotal role in negotiating a settlement that spared executives a criminal trial:

This suit was a serious threat to the drugmaker, and it eventually called in Holder. And in November 2004, the morning that the case was about to go to trial, Holder helped negotiate a settlement. Working in the judge’s chambers in West Virginia, he forged an agreement under which the firm would have to pay $10 million over four years into drug abuse and education programs in West Virginia. Purdue would not have to admit any wrongdoing. (Days earlier, the firm had offered the state about $2 million to settle; McGraw had turned down Purdue and had not bothered to produce a counter-offer.)

The settlement was a big win for the company. Ten million dollars was a piddling amount compared to what Purdue was reaping from OxyContin sales. More important, this settlement helped keep the lid on the firm’s criminal activities. There would be no trial—and no public release of documents or testimony about the company’s actions, which were already being investigated by federal prosecutors. In late 2002, the feds had begun an investigation of Purdue, with the first of what would be nearly 600 subpoenas for corporate records related to the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin.

In May 2007, the company and its three top executives pleaded guilty to federal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin by claiming it was less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal symptoms. Purdue and the three execs agreed to pay fines of $634.5 million.

*Brokering a settlement for pharmaceutical kingpin Merck, which had been besieged by multiple state lawsuits over Medicaid overbilling and doctor kickbacks involving four popular drugs. Merck admitted no wrongdoing, paying $671 million to make whistleblowers, state probes over their pricing, and bribery charges go away.

In his tony Manhattan offices, Holder did what any corporate lawyer worth his multi-million-dollar salary and benefits package would do: Represent his clients to the best of his ability. But in his first tours of duty as a government lawyer, Holder repeatedly put politics above the national interest. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Holder’s infamous roles in issuing pardons to Clinton crony Marc Rich and clemency to convicted bank robbers and bombers of the Puerto Rican terrorist group, FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional), received the most heat. In both cases, the government servant played a far more active role in intervening than he ever cared to admit.

The Los Angeles Times added new information to the terrorist clemency case by disclosing before the hearing that Holder had “repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to” the FALN commutations. Holder, the paper determined from whistleblower interviews and documents, “played an active role in changing the position of the Justice Department” to facilitate President Clinton’s commutations for 16 violent terrorists from the group. The FALN had waged a bloody bombing campaign that maimed dozens of New York City police officers and resulted in the deaths or injuries of scores of other victims. Holder forged ahead with his meddling on behalf of the president against the protests of the FBI, NYPD, federal prosecutors, and victims.

The nation’s top law enforcer did not pay the bombing victims or their families the courtesy of notifying them of the decision to release the unrepentant terrorists until after the clemencies were publicized in the media.

As for the Marc Rich case, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy accurately described it as “one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the Justice Department.” Congressional investigators called it “unconscionable.” Fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich, on the run for evading nearly $50 million in taxes, found the best lawyer he could buy: former Democratic White House counsel and intimate friend of Eric Holder, Jack Quinn. Despite his denials, memos showed Holder knew of the pardon in advance, failed to notify prosecutors and the FBI that it was coming, “and even gave Quinn public-relations advice on getting out the ‘legal merits of the case.’” The evidence clearly shows Holder and Quinn violated department protocols and colluded to keep the Justice Department out of the pardon deal.

Appearing contrite at his Senate confirmation hearing, Holder confessed:

I’ve accepted the responsibility of making those mistakes. I’ve never tried to hide. I’ve never tried to blame anybody else.

What I’ve always said was that, given my—given the opportunity to do it differently, I certainly would have.

I should have made sure that everybody, all the prosecutors in that case, were informed of what was going on. I made assumptions that turned out not to be true. I should have not spoken to the White House and expressed an opinion without knowing all of the facts with regard to that matter.

That was and remains the most intense, most searing experience I’ve ever had as a lawyer. There were questions raised about me that I was not used to hearing.

I’ve learned from that experience. I think that, as perverse as this might sound, I will be a better attorney general, should I be confirmed, having had the Mark Rich experience.

…It was something that I think is not typical of the way in which I’ve conducted myself as a careful, thoughtful lawyer. As I said, it is something where I made mistakes, and I learned from those mistakes.

See Michelle Malkin, "Culture of corruption: Holder, terrorists, Covington & Burling."

Why I Quit Haloscan a Couple of Years Ago

From Doug Ross, "Dear Haloscan, Go Jam Tiger's Putter Up Your Wazoo":

I received the following email earlier today with the subject heading "Haloscan is being discontinued." Haloscan is, for the non-techies in the audience, the application that this site has used for years. It powers the comments feature and the trackbacks at the bottom of each post.

So check this out:

I'm not real good at arithmetic, but this appears to be a threat. Tony Soprano says that if we don't pay up within a few days that my 10,000-or-so comments by users will be deleted.

More at the link.

I switched back to Blogger commenting right away, when the JS-Kit buyout happened some time back. Glad I did ...

No comment system is perfect, but Blogger's own comments work pretty well for me. I'd prefer a manual trackback system, and I'd like more options for moderating comments and preventing spam, but Blogger's dependable. I had so much trouble with Haloscan, with undependability, and this was around the time of the buyout. It took me a lot of rigging around with the template to restore Blogger commenting. I actually had to create a new blog, and cut and paste the code from the new blog into American Power, then clicking preview to see if it looked okay. I wasn't sure, but it worked. Lost all the old commenting from Haloscan, and I had a couple of complaints from leftists who keep track of those things, like their snarky corrections to my entries, etc. But it's been so long now I can hardly remember.

I actually have less commenting going on around this blog lately, as I don't tend to it, to cultivate the community. That takes a lot of time, "returning" comments at other blogs, etc.. So, that's been a drag. Twenty or more comments in a thread nowadays is a big one.

So, don't be shy all you AmPower readers who lurk on the sidelines. I appreciate the feedback, and you can always drop your links here -- I don't mind

Senate Health Bill Would Cause National Health Costs to Rise

From the Wall Street Journal, "Report: Senate Health Bill Will Raise Costs":

Republicans on Friday seized on a report by government actuaries that said the Senate health bill would cause national health costs to rise.

The report, compiled by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimated that total health costs in the U.S. would be $234 billion higher than if the bill weren't passed. President Barack Obama has said Democrats' health plan would reduce the growth of health-care costs.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said Democratic lawmakers were spending large sums in the health-care bill "to make things worse." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the report "confirms what we've known all along," arguing that the bill would "increase costs, raise premiums and slash Medicare." Democrats cited some parts of the report that were more favorable to the bill.

The report said measures in the bill to restrain Medicare costs and trim generous insurance plans "would have a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates," but said those gains would be outweighed in the initial years as newly insured people sought to get more health care.

"This report is yet another clear indicator that we have to act, and act now," said Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the chairman of the Finance Committee.

The report said 33 million more U.S. citizens and legal residents would be insured under the bill, resulting in 93% of Americans with health-insurance coverage. But it said the new demand for health care caused by the bill could prove "difficult to meet initially" because doctors and hospitals would charge higher fees in response to the new demand. The report also said the bill's proposed cuts in Medicare spending "may be unrealistic."

In addition to expanding coverage, the Senate bill creates a long-term-care insurance program that would provide a daily subsidy for those with disabilities and illnesses who require home-based care. The report cited a risk of "adverse selection," saying people who were more likely to require care would be more likely to use the new insurance. That could cause insurance payouts to exceed premium revenue.

"There is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection would make the [long-term-care insurance] program unsustainable," the report said.

Also, from The Hill, "Independent healthcare cost analysis becomes political football" (via Memeorandum).

The full report is here.

Keep the Filibuster; or, Matthew Yglesias Needs to Respect Minority Rights

You know, leftists are supposed to be all about protecting the disadvantaged and downtrodden in society against those great ("racist", "oppressive") institutional forces that threaten minority interests. I mean, isn't that one of the defining characteristics of one who professes to be "progressive"?

Well, of course, but it's all a lie, an ideological scam, which when revealed indicates the left's sheer lust for power to ram down a totalitarian program of radical policy engineering and social "justice."

I've noticed this recently with the scheming among radicals like Ezra Klein to lobby for an end to the filibuster, the one thing that's saving the country right now from the healthcare monstrosity that's set to bankrupt the country and destroy the old-age contract protecting our loved ones.

Matthew Yglesias is especially bad. I know, I've written about him many times, excoriating him for his extreme views, especially on foreign policy. I wrote a post previouisly pointing to the same kind of Yglesias extremism on congressional checks and balances. See, "Matthew Yglesias Equates GOP Filibusters With First-Degree Murder."

Well the dude's at it again, quoting Stephen Pearlstein in attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a "bad man" and a "charmless and shameless hypocrite" who "will use lies, threats and all manner of parliamentary subterfuge to obstruct the president’s programs."

The post is titled, "Ungovernable America," and Yglesias concludes with his own comments:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

Actually, I guess one practically needs to be sorry about this nowadays, but I'm one to invest some belief in the Founders that their notions of establishing institutional safeguards is essential in a constitutional regime; and that these checks protect the rights of minorities, both numerical, and racial/ethic/identity minorities. Ezra Klein's been arguing that recent trends in the filibuster are unprecedented in their obstructive effects, and such arguments are being forwarded to advance the Democratic case for the abolition of the rule. It's a bad idea, no matter who's in power, because parties come and go ... it's the regime that stays for the duration, protecting freedom.

Anyway, I just found this editorial from 2005, when the GOP held the Senate majority. Matthew Yglesias ought to read it. From Michael Gerhardt Larry Kramer, at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Protect Our Rights, Keep the Filibuster":

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist soon may try to change the rules governing the filibuster. Designed to end the Democrats' filibuster against a handful of President Bush's judicial nominations, "the nuclear option" is unwise, unprincipled and contrary to our long-standing constitutional tradition. The practice of engaging in extended debate has been a feature of the Senate since its earliest days. Almost a century ago, the Senate, acting on the basis of its authority spelled out in the Constitution, formalized that practice in Rule XXII. This rule requires two-thirds of the Senate to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule and three-fifths of the Senate to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

Rule XXII's requirements give a substantial minority within the Senate a significant voice on the propriety of proposed Senate action. Because the Senate comprises two senators from each state the senators supporting a filibuster may represent more than one-half of the population of the United States. Thus, through rules making it difficult to end a filibuster, the Senate has sensibly provided a way of defending minority rights.

In the debate over judicial nominations, some have complained that a filibuster prevents an up or down vote. But this is not unusual. Given its express mandate to adopt its own rules, the Senate has relied on a variety of practices to be resolved without formal up-or-down votes on the Senate floor. Familiar examples include unanimous consent rules, holding legislation or nominations in committee (either by committee vote or inaction), and, of course, the filibuster.

Frist's proposal represents the first time in the history of the United States that the Senate has changed its internal rules of governance without following its rules for amending its rules. The Senate's own precedents unequivocally establish the impropriety of such an action. On at least three separate occasions, the Senate has expressly rejected the argument that a simple majority has the authority claimed by the proponents of the pending proposal. It would be nothing less than a cynical manipulation of well-established Senate rules in order to gain partisan advantage ....

Like similar practices, the filibuster has played an important and legitimate role in Senate history. Most fundamentally, it helps protect the nation against the most serious danger faced by a democracy -- permanent "capture" by a faction that, for a moment, has gained control over the three branches of government.

Respect for the filibuster -- and for its essential function in maintaining long-term stability and respect for minority interests -- is an integral part of American democracy. To set it aside out of impatience, frustration or arrogance would be a profound disservice to the nation.

Woods Takes 'Indefinite Break' from Golf: News Follows Loredana Jolie Shocker - Tiger Liked Threesomes - 'He Could Go for Days'!

From the Tiger Woods Foundation, "Tiger Woods Taking Hiatus From Golf":

I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children. I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I've done, but I want to do my best to try.

I would like to ask everyone, including my fans, the good people at my foundation, business partners, the PGA Tour, and my fellow competitors, for their understanding. What's most important now is that my family has the time, privacy, and safe haven we will need for personal healing.

After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.

Again, I ask for privacy for my family and I am especially grateful for all those who have offered compassion and concern during this difficult period.

Also, at USA Today, "Tiger Woods will take break from PGA, cites 'infidelity'."

Well, this is just getting out of this world. From the New York Daily News, "Alleged Tiger Woods hooker Loredana Jolie fame-starved, says boss; Jamie Jungers talks on 'Today'." And at Hollywood Gossip, "Loredana Jolie: Tiger Woods' Favorite Call Girl":

The list of mistresses linked to Tiger Woods just expanded once again. Although do you even qualify as a mistress if you're getting paid for it like Loredana Jolie?

Regardless, Tiger's list of women continues to grow amid claims from a Hollywood madam that he shelled out thousands of dollars for threesomes with hookers.

One of his favorites was Loredana Jolie, according to her pimp, Michelle Braun, who says she set the world's #1 golfer up with the blond Playboy model from Sicily.

"She's a stunning girl," Braun said. "He went out with her 4-5 times. She took part in group sex. They met up in 2006 or 2007. I'd say he paid $15,000 for her."

In addition to Loredana Jolie, Woods "had a pretty big appetite for women" in general, Braun told the New York Daily News. "He was rarely with just one girl."

"He usually wanted more. He liked three-ways."

More at the link. Tiger had "stamina," it turns out. More at New York Daily News, "Hollywood madam Michelle Braun claims Tiger Woods paid $60G for kinky sex with high-priced hookers."

See also, Hot Air, "Tiger: I’m quitting golf — temporarily." (Via Memeorandum.)

ADDED: From Carolyn Tackett, "Tiger Woods is Taking an "Indefinite" Leave From Golf." And at Fox News as well, "Tiger Woods to Take Indefinite Leave From Professional Golf."

Tea Parties Mobilize for 2010 Elections!

From yesterday's Washington Post, "'Tea Party' Movement Preps for 2010 Vote":

The energized "tea party" movement, which upended this year's political debate with noisy anti-government protests, is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections by channeling money and supporters to conservative candidates set to challenge both Democrats and Republicans.

Buoyed by their success in capsizing a moderate Republican candidate this fall in Upstate New York, tea party activists and affiliated groups are unveiling new political action committees and tactics aimed at capitalizing on conservative opposition to health-care reform, financial bailouts and other Obama administration policies. The goal is to harness the anger that led to hundreds of protests around the country from spring to fall, including a gathering of tens of thousands of protesters on the Mall in September.

The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters. Fundraising efforts are just beginning, but tea party activists have already inspired serious challenges to establishment GOP Senate candidates Carly Fiorina in California and Charlie Crist in Florida; a similar insurgency in last month's House race in New York splintered local Republicans, leading to a Democratic victory.

"It's time to take control," conservative activist Eric Odom declares on the Web site of his new political action committee, Liberty First PAC, which will "support fellow patriots looking [to] defend our liberty." Odom, who played a central role in organizing the first tea party protests this spring, says the PAC will not support incumbents of either party.

Smart Girl Politics, a conservative women's group active in getting people to tea party protests, is considering forming a PAC to steer its 23,000 members to help conservative candidates.

Another influential activist, Erick Erickson of RedState.com, plans to encourage donations to conservative challengers such as GOP Senate candidate Pat Toomey, who hopes to win the Pennsylvania seat held by Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter.

And in Washington, FreedomWorks, an advocacy group that helped organize many major tea party protests, is set to announce plans this month to raise millions of dollars through a reorganized PAC targeting its 500,000 registered members, said Matt Kibbe, the group's president. Chaired by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), the group says its fundraising effort will be modeled on the Internet financing juggernaut created by Barack Obama in 2008.

"We're looking at the potential of raising small checks from a vast number of donors, just as Obama did," Kibbe said. "We've been studying everything about the Obama primary strategy, and I happen to think the tea party movement could make even the Obama grass-roots machine look obsolete."

The remainder of the article addresses the question of "Can the movement unite?"

That's something I've covered here. See, "A Battle Within the Tea Party Movement?" My argument? Basically, if the tea parties devolve into a third party movement, we're done. Better for activists to try to centralize their leadership and unite behind the most conservative members of the Republican Party. I have Sarah Palin in mind. And recall the news from a couple of weeks back, that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will headline next February's "First National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville, Tennessee. CNN had a report, "Palin, Bachmann to Headline Tea Party Convention."

The tea parties have created the most important movement in American politics today. Both political parties are shaken in their boots at the potential for a massive grassroots earthquake to shake the political system to its foundation. The Republican Party should be especially worried. An RNC fundraiser called me the other night. Normally I screen the calls if I'm not in the mood to give, but I took this call, and I gave the fundraiser hell for suppporting RINO Dede Scozzafava in NY-23. The guy was an idiot, claiming the Chairman Michael Steele didn't really support Scozzafava after all (and then he went into his pre-packaged spiel to try to shakedown a contribution). Don't give to these people until they get their act together. See Michelle Malkin's piece for a refresher, "The GOP elite’s $1 million object lesson — and the message of NY-23."

The left is worried as well, of course, which is why everyone from Anderson Cooper to Barack Obama, from Jane Hamsher to Rachel Maddow to the SEIU, has demonized grassroots activists with the ugly gay slur "teabaggers":

Just this morning the Huffington Post has another hit piece, "Anatomy of The Tea Party Movement." As you can see at the piece, these folks want to accentuate the splits in the movement and weaken the surge of outrage against the left's socialist takeover of America:

During the spring's Tax Day Tea Parties and the summer's ubiquitous town-hall protests, unity was on display as a disparate group of protesters took aim at the Obama administration and the federal government. But once the fervor cooled down, some of the movement's best-known affiliates began feuding. The Tea Party Patriots and several regional organizations publicly accused the Tea Party Express of Astroturfing, claiming that it was directed by Republican strategists, and even ousted and sued one of its own founders for associating with the Express.

The left fears the tea parties, which explains all the strenous efforts by Democrats to delegitimize the movement.

RELATED: The Hill, "Tea partyers petition Dem lawmaker to move office to make protests easier." (Via Memeorandum.)

The videos above features (1) the infamous Susan Roesgen attacking tea partiers last April, and (2) a video compilation from last week's Nancy Pelosi tea party, which was created by Roger Ogden, the Meetup Organizer of the Stop Obama Now! - San Diego Tea Party.

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Joseph Stalin

Well, now that I've had this debate with Roger Ogden over Obama as Hitler, it's pretty funny to see the outrage on the left over this image of Irvine Councilman Steven Choi. The San Francisco Chronicle's picked up the story, after the Orange County Register published pictures. See, "SoCal councilman wears a Stalin-ized Pelosi":

That protesters on both sides of the political spectrum equate America's leaders with dictators like Hitler isn't new. But critics were shocked when such a comparison was made by an elected official.

Last Friday, a group rented a room at the Irvine Hilton to protest the Democratic Party of Orange County's 15th Annual Harry Truman Awards and headliner House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Joining the demonstration was Irvine Councilman and Assembly candidate Steven Choi.

An OC Register photographer caught Choi roaming the Hilton lobby before Pelosi's address. Choi is seen in a suit, tie and a depiction of Pelosi as Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator who killed millions under his Great Terror campaign.

Another photo shows Choi posing with a woman who is wearing a Pelosi-SS guard illustration.

Well, I was with that "group." My issue all along is not identifying the Democrats with totalitarians, but in getting the analogies right. Obama's not Hitler, as I've said time and again (and again, with Roger Ogden). I wrote about this back in July 2008, "The Ideological Foundations of the Obama Phenomenon." The truth is that Barack Obama's a Leninist vanguard revolutionary, and he'd implement Soviet style collectivism if it weren't for the prohibitive restraints of the U.S. constitutional regime -- and thank God for that!

Now, at the tea party, while I didn't care too much for the Obama as Hitler and Nancy as Mussolini images, I loved "Learing from Their Hero" below. This was one of the flyers that were available from the Orange County Leadership Alliance. This is the group that "rented a room at the Irvine Hilton":

The flyers were to be pinned on shirts. I was wearing my jacket, and didn't bother to do so. But I certainly would have worn "Learning From Their Hero."

Compare to Left Coast Rebel's take, "Irvine, California Councilman Steven Choi: Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Stalin." The issue raises the question of the left's hypocrisy on political demonization, since Bush as Hitler effigies and posters were de rigueur through eight years of protests against the Bush administration. And it's not just the posters, but that death cult ideology and assassination threats that accompanied the neo-communists against President Bush. And to be clear, comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler is just as strained as comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. (IMHO, but refer to Roger Oden for the contrary view, "A Battle Within the Tea Party Movement? Roger Ogden Responds"). For my money, the Democrats are indeed aspiring for the mantle of Uncle Joe Stalin.

For more on this, see:

* "At what point does a liberal become a Stalinist?"

* "Barack Obama:America's COMMUNIST President"

* "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis."

* "Obama’s Communist Mentor."

* "Obama’s Numerous Links with International Marxism Exposed."

Plus-Sized Beauties to Grace Covers at V Magazine

Readers might recall my blog entry from September, where I took issue with Lady Gaga in blackface. Gaga was on the cover of V Magazine, "Gaga Over Gaga." Well, maybe the editors are changing their tune a little, going for some political correctness in the January issue. From the New York Post, "Heavy Changes for V Covers":

V magazine is trying to make a big splash. The fashion glossy is moving away from skinny recent cover girls like Natalie Portman and Aussie model Miranda Kerr and switching to plus-size models in its January issue. "Big, little, pint-size, plus-size -- every body is beautiful. And this issue is out to prove it," editor-in-chief Stephen Gan says. Among the beauties V shot is "Hungry" memoirist and plus-size model Crystal Renn. We hear other shoots will range from fully dressed to nude and be done by Terry Richardson, Bruce Weber and Karl Lagerfeld.

The Natalie Portman piece is here, "Natalie or Nothing." Let's hope some of the skinnier actresses still grace the pages of the V.

Communists Against Escalation in Afghanistan

I've spent a good amount of times around communist hardliners, so it's interesting to see yet another radical left blog spout the same of Marxist-Leninist antiwar propaganda:

War abroad creates excuses to use the state security apparatus at home. War creates profits for well-placed corporations and individuals, transferring wealth via the government from the dwindling middle class to the ruling class. This also comes with the added bonus of depriving the government of funds that might go to programs that would enhance the health and welfare of the rest of us.

War creates an outlet for the jobless, allowing for higher levels of unemployment without as much risk of social unrest — and what's left can be more effectively contained by a militarized police force which enjoys broader powers in the context of the government's war policies. Finally, it's clear to those who study the issue that a principle driving force of international terrorism has been hatred and resentment against America — not because of our "freedom," but because how we and our proxies invade, occupy, and brutalize Muslim populations. Continuing war and occupation in Afghanistan thus effectively preserves and enhance the very excuses needed to stay there.

Extended war in Afghanistan serves all the interests of the ruling class and none of the rest of society. It will waste more resources, destroy more lives, increase debt, and reduce the ability of the American economy to ever provide a stable, secure future. Even worse, it will make it easier for the U.S. to move on to the next conflict, maybe Iran or Pakistan, just as being in Afghanistan made it easier to move into Iraq.

Compare to Internatioanal ANSWER'S Brian Becker: "Afghanistan and the Logic of Empire."

It's all about fomenting the revolution. Hating American, opposition to war (and to "racist oppression"), blah, blah gives the communists their raison d'être.

Added: "Obama and Afghanistan : The Permanent War Economy."

Obama Going Neocon?

Robert Kagan, one of our greatest contemporary neoconservatives, was deeply impressed with President Obama's Nobel Prize speech in Oslo yesterday. He remarked:

Wow. What a shift of emphasis. Something about this Afghan decision, coupled perhaps with events in Iran, has really affected his approach.

Also noticing the neocon tendencies in the speech is Abe Greenwald, at National Review, "Going Neocon: Is Obama getting mugged by reality?" Greenwald notes the age-old formulation: "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." He then assesses whether the president's been "mugged," concluding:

The president has been partially mugged. Reality has accosted him and shaken him down for concessions, but it is only a temporary arrangement. Obama’s “persistence” is, for the time being, intact. That explains the contradictions contained within his war speech.

However, by invoking evil in his peace speech, he has obligated himself to a more decisive course of action and perhaps a new moral seriousness. For there is a deeper neoconservative concern that serves as the foundation upon which the architecture of democracy promotion and hawkishness are built. This is the belief in good and evil, reality’s parting gift to the mugged. Sometimes thought of as a quaint and outdated proposal, the assertion that virtue and wickedness are real is at the heart of neoconservative support for American power in the world.

Thus, the questions becomes how well will Obama live up to these obligations. I'm not confident that he will, that the president's simply responding to the polls. But at least for once we have a bit more of the kind of speech an American president should give.

Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!

This has to be one of the greatest moments in my blogging career!

The inimitable sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain, erstwhile neoconservative and publisher of the now-defunct political webzine Neoconstant, has broken the final barriers of obscurity to capture the highly-coveted Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!

The award goes to the biggest gasbag to follow in the footsteps of Conor Friedersdorf, the Andrew Sullivan myrmidon and closet leftist who's jonesing to single-handedly nuke the entire American right-wing, from Sarah Palin to Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh.

The honor is bestowed on those rare occasions when a nominees's work has been recognized for its supreme anti-right-wing smear-mastery by none other than RawMusleGlutes (the Daily Dish, now esteemed as the blogosphere's "nerve center for news from the Iranian street"); and King Charles of Little-Green-Libel-Lizard-Land (and now self-proclaimed expatriate from the "Birthers, creationists, climate deniers," etc.).

Looking at this Memeorandum screencap, we see that both mental cases have linked to E.D., the aspiring slander-master at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, and his post, "Conservatives as Self-Parodies":

I do recommend E.D.'s post, if for nothing else but the butt-freak arrogance that's dribbling off the page like a milky load of Andrew Sullivan's spooge. E.D. ridicules Andy Schlafly, the no-name publisher of the unread Conservapedia, with supreme self-importance:

I really am spoiled reading the conservative writers that I do read at the Scene and the Porch and Pomocon and the other little pockets of intellectual conservatism remaining.

Hey, can't be TOO spoiled now can we (can't be too rich or too thin either, as they say)?!!

The "Scene" is the insider's shorthand for Conor Friedersdorf's blog (no doubt the blogosphere's equivalent to William Buckley's National Review in the early days!). Absolutely no familiarity with the "Porch" (but my guess is "Front Porch Conservative"), and "Pomocon" is the Post-Modern Conservative over at First Things.

But there's more:

It just makes me throw my hands up in the air. I try too hard to retain the word “conservative” – to hold on to some other sense of its meaning, some other definition that the American right has no hold over. I have great admiration for the paleocons, but I would never really fit in even with that idiosyncratic bunch. I’ve tried to come to terms with the idea that the movement can be changed for the better but I’m beginning to doubt myself even there. The invention of the modern Tea Party only reveals how deep the fraud runs.

In the end I’m just at a loss. I see less and less hope for the American right however much they bellow and bluster to the contrary. I don’t even mean this in terms of electoral hope. I mean this in terms of salvation.

How deep the fraud runs? And the "tea parties"? Has E.D. ever attended a tea party? I can guarantee you there's more intellectual vigor in one good tea party sign than all the bulls**t bluster being spouted at all the "po-mo" websites I've cited on this page:

And E.D. Kain's an intellectual mountebank and an ideological imposter. I'd say a yellow-bellied backstabber as well, but I've covered that ground before. See, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Interviews Despicable Libel-Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs."

Click the link above. More of the lowdown on E.D. Kain, po-mo-prick-in-arms to the wannabe right's libel-blogging contingency.

Tiger Woods Court Order to Block Nude Pics and Videos: Sponsor Tag Heuer Pulls Ads‎; Wife Elin Nordegrin to Stay - For the Children!

Well, Donald Trump argued yesterday that "Tiger is going to be hotter than ever before — mark my words."

Well, I'm marking.

It turns out that there are major developments in the spiraling Tiger Woods saga. At TMZ, "Tiger Gets Order Blocking Nude Photos, Videos":

Tiger Woods' British lawyers have obtained a court order from the High Court in London, prohibiting British publications from publishing any nude photos and videos of Tiger Woods ... and TMZ has obtained copies of the documents ...

The court order is here.

Plus, at the Sydney Morning Herald, "Time's Up: Tag Heuer Pulls Tiger Woods Advertising":

Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer is removing placards of Tiger Woods from jewellery stores across Australia, but says the timing is unrelated to the champion golfer's recent transgressions.

Tag Heuer is one of Woods's major sponsors, and its move this week follows Woods's spectacular fall from grace after revelations of alleged extramarital affairs.

Woods endorses the company's "Link" range of watches, and was involved in the design of the high-end titanium "Professional Golf" watch.

Pino Martello and Joel Smales with Michael Ryan minutes before he pulled down Smales Jewellers' Tiger Woods placard. Photo: Chris Thomson
Last week, in the wake of a mysterious car crash outside his Florida home, Woods admitted "transgressions" and said he had let his family down.

His refusal to talk even to police about the crash fuelled media speculation that he was escaping from his wife after she became enraged at reports he was secretly seeing New York nightclub hostess Rachel Uchitel.

Plus, at the Los Angeles Times, "Tiger Woods' Sponsors Taking a Timeout."

And at People Magazine, "Tiger's Wife: Inside Elin's Nightmare":

While more details surface about Tiger Woods's reported dalliances, the golf great's Swedish-born wife, Elin Nordegren, has yet to speak about the scandal or give any hint of her distress – beyond a frantic 911 call after her mother collapsed at Woods's Florida home Tuesday.

A smart, athletic student who passed up the chance to study child psychology in Sweden to become a nanny in the U.S., Nordegren tried hard not to lose herself in her husband's fame. But everything changed after Woods’s Nov. 27 car crash. Since then, says a source inside Woods’s camp, the couple have discussed the full breadth of Woods's infidelities. "She knows everything," says the source.

And, New York Daily News, "Tiger Woods' Wife Elin Nordegren May Stay With Him for the Kids: Report."