Killer Amy Bishop and the Leftist Oddballs Who Defend Her

The Boston Herald has a piece on Dr. Amy Bishop, "‘Oddball’ Portrait Emerges"* (via Memeorandum):

As authorities searched for clues into what could have sent a University of Alabama neurobiology professor on an alleged killing spree, friends and family yesterday described Braintree native Amy Bishop as an awkward introvert on the brink of losing her teaching job ....

“She was an oddball - just not very sociable,” said Sylvia Fluckiger, a former lab technician who worked with Bishop in 1993.

Bishop acknowledged at the time being questioned in the bombing attempt of a Harvard medical doctor evaluating her on doctorate work, a professor with whom Bishop was known to quarrel, Fluckiger said ....

“She was quite cavalier about it,” Fluckiger said of Bishop’s description of her interview with police. She said Bishop “grinned” as she described being asked by cops whether she’d ever taken stamps off an envelope and fastened them onto something else. “I cannot tell you what the grin meant,” Fluckiger said.

Speaking of oddballs, this guy Steven Taylor is really steamed that I've highlighted his idiocy. And he again mischaracterizes the issues at hand: "Let me ask directly: do you think that a political motive is evident here?"

Actually, I've never claimed she had political motives. All I've ever said was that she's a "Harvard-trained left-wing professor." Sounds reasonable, considering the evaluation offered by one of her former students:

Neuroscience essentially turns into a bioethics class. She's a liberal from "Hahvahd" and let's you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects ...

But note something else: I responded to Steven Taylor at the comments this morning, asking (kinda snarkily) with regards to Malik Hasan, "No doubt one can only assume that you rebuffed political motives in these cases as well."

And my hunch was correct. See Taylor's essay, "What to do About Hasan’s Religion?":

... unless we have evidence of a broader conspiracy, I don’t see how this is ultimately any different than any other mass shooting in US history: the acts of a deranged individual.

The "deranged individual" argument has proved to be perhaps the most monumentally stupid meme of the post-9/11 era. And Steven has even more of teh insight:

To this point, the evidence suggests that the Fort Hood shooting will fall into this category [of historical insignificance ] as well, with Hasan’s religion being part of his personal motivation, but with almost certainly no broader meaning than that.

Wrong.

All kinds of broader meaning, actually ...

The president announced a memorandum on November 12 last year, "Presidential Memorandum on Inventory of Files Related to Fort Hood Shooting," obviously indicating the White House's belated sincerity on the murders. (See also, "Obama Wants Probe of Hasan Intelligence.") And of course just days earlier evidence emerged that Hasan has sought contact with al Qaeda, and -- surprise! -- the Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had the highest praise for the killer. See, "Nidal Hasan Sought Contact With al Qaeda: CIA Refuses Congressional Briefing; Anwar al Awlaki, Hasan Mentor, Praises 'Great Heroic Act'." Recall that Awlaki was shown to have direct contacts with three of the 9/11 terrorists.

But of course, idiot leftists will still tell you that you shouldn't draw conclusions, even though Nidal Hasan handed out Korans the morning of the killings, and he sought spiritual guidance through chants of "Allahu akbar" — "God is great" — moments before opening fire on the innocents.

But anyway, back to the Huntsville killings. See Dan Collins for an analysis of the Amy Bishop case (with attention to the left's denialism): "On the Uses of Amy Bishop Anderson."

*********

* I've corrected the title of the Boston Herald piece above. There's a typo at the original.

Black-Tar Heroin: A Glimpse of California Before Decriminalization

The first thing you want to do is take a look at this graphic, "Interactive: Black-Tar Heroin."

Then, the full article, "THE HEROIN ROAD: A Lethal Business Model Targets Middle America":

Immigrants from an obscure corner of Mexico are changing heroin use in many parts of America.

Farm boys from a tiny county that once depended on sugar cane have perfected an ingenious business model for selling a semi-processed form of Mexican heroin known as black tar.

Using convenient delivery by car and aggressive marketing, they have moved into cities and small towns across the United States, often creating demand for heroin where there was little or none. In many of those places, authorities report increases in overdoses and deaths.

Immigrants from Xalisco in the Pacific Coast state of Nayarit, Mexico, they have brought an audacious entrepreneurial spirit to the heroin trade. Their success stems from both their product, which is cheaper and more potent than Colombian heroin, and their business model, which places a premium on customer convenience and satisfaction.

Users need not venture into dangerous neighborhoods for their fix. Instead, they phone in their orders and drivers take the drug to them. Crew bosses sometimes call users after a delivery to check on the quality of service. They encourage users to bring in new customers, rewarding them with free heroin if they do.

In contrast to Mexico's big cartels -- violent, top-down organizations that mainly enrich a small group -- the Xalisco networks are small, decentralized businesses. Each is run by an entrepreneur whose workers may soon strike out on their own and become his competitors. They have no all-powerful leader and rarely use guns, according to narcotics investigators and imprisoned former dealers.

Leaving the wholesale business to the cartels, they have mined outsize profits from the retail trade, selling heroin a tenth of a gram at a time. Competition among the networks has reduced prices, further spreading heroin addiction.

"I call them the Xalisco boys," said Dennis Chavez, a Denver police narcotics officer who has arrested dozens of dealers from Xalisco (pronounced ha-LEES-ko) and has studied their connections to other cities. "They're nationwide."

Their acumen and energy are a major reason why Mexican heroin has become more pervasive in this country, gaining market share at a time when heroin use overall is stable or declining, according to government estimates.

The Xalisco retail strategy has "absolutely changed the user and the methods of usage," said Chris Long, a police narcotics officer in Charlotte, N.C., where competition among Xalisco dealers has cut prices from $25 to $12.50 per dose of black-tar heroin. "It's almost like Wal-Mart: 'We're going to keep our prices cheap and grow from there.' It works."

It's long, but the piece confirms my sense that should marijuana decriminalization proceed further in California, this model of the entrepreneurial Mexican heroin pusher is just a glimpse of things to come. Pay attention to the key part one more time, where it notes, "Using convenient delivery by car and aggressive marketing, they have moved into cities and small towns across the United States, often creating demand for heroin where there was little or none. In many of those places, authorities report increases in overdoses and deaths."

Then, compare that to the argument at Mary Grabar's piece, "Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization":

The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.

My libertarian friends like to say, “I’m a libertarian, not a libertine.” But though many of the advocates of libertarianism lead socially conservative lives, their agendas promote libertinism — especially when it comes to legalizing drugs. They forget that the moral order they have inherited is put at even further risk as laws change to allow more destructive behavior.

The libertinism Mary rejects is precisely the soft underbelly of vulnerability that black heroin pushers of Mexico will exploit. But drug decriminalization proponents will continue to say "no one has ever died from smoking marijuana," blah, blah ...

Surging death statistics will be along shortly ...

Just keep close tabs on your kids. Some gentlemen from Xalisco are looking for them.

See also, "Black Tar Moves In, and Death Follows," and "The Good Life in Xalisco Can Mean Death in the United States."

RELATED: FrontPage Magazine, "Marijuana and Conservatism Debate."

UPDATED: David Swindle at NewsReal links with a discussion, "Stumbling Down the Slippery Slope: First Legalized Weed Then Prescription Smack?"

Harvard Hotbed? Amy Bishop Was Bombing Suspect in 1993

The Boston Globe has a new report on Dr. Amy Bishop, "Alleged Ala. Killer Was Suspect in Attempted Bombing of Harvard Professor" (via Memeorandum).

And Don Surber comments:

What could possibly top this story?

The Boston Globe reported: “The professor who is accused of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama on Friday was a suspect in the attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993, a law enforcement official said today. Amy Bishop and her husband, James Anderson, were questioned after a package containing two bombs was sent to the Newton home of Dr. Paul Rosenberg, a professor and doctor at Boston’s Children’s Hospital… Sylvia Fluckiger, a lab technician who worked with Bishop at the time, said Bishop had been in a dispute with Rosenberg shortly before the bombs were discovered.”

How does a woman with a history like this get through Harvard?

Theodore Kaczynski, Bill Ayers and now Amy Bishop. Don’t mess with professors — if you don’t want to be blown up.

Calling someone a professor was considered racist last week; this week it is said in fear.

Bill Ayers didn't attend Harvard (although he may have helped Barack Obama get in), but both Theodore Kaczynski and Amy Bishop did. It's not a statistical pattern, by any means. And if we look around we'd find other similar coincidences. But something about Don's post just rang the eerie bells. First it was Harvard and socialism. Now it's Harvard and terrorism. Again, no statistical significance, but seriously, what could possibly top this?

More details here, in any case: "Crimes, Cover-ups and Fringe Science."

OMG JOHN BIRCH FASCIST SCARY ELDERLY (AND BLACK) TEA PARTIERS!!

I need to credit Dana Loesch with some of my wording yesterday. At the caption to my picture of the elderly tea partiers, I said they were "OMG JOHN BIRCH FASCIST SCARY!!"

Well, if you read all my links at the post, the "OMG JOHN BIRCH FASCIST SCARY!!" link goes to Digby, the Queen of Clueless, who cites a prehistoric Crooks and Liars post from February 2009 arguing that the tea partiers were "John Birchers."

Well, here's one of those fanatical JOHN BIRCH FASCIST SCARY (NOT SO ELDERLY) BLACK TEA PARTIERS: C. Mason Weaver, a conservative author, entrepreneur, and blog-talk host who's running for Congress from California's 53rd district:

The OMG exclamatory snark originated with Dana's post on the town halls last summer. Recall how radical leftists constantly decried the angry "mobs" and the "mob mentality"? Well, here's some of the mobs Dana found at her events:

And Dana writes at the post:

I am the mob. My kids are the mob. My grandma is the mob. My family members did not shed blood for this country so that their elected officials could silence them into shame if they dared to speak out and voice their concerns.

Are you the mob?

See also, Legal Insurrection, "Why Are These Angry People Smiling?"

Socialist Serial Killer Amy Bishop

I waded through the comments on Amy Bishop's RateMyProfessors page, but missed the one comment suggesting she was a socialist professor. I simply noted that Dr. Bishop was a "Harvard-trained left-wing professor," and some folks took issue even with that. James Joyner in particular was getting kudos for his purportedly even-handed take on the matter. See, "The Tragedy at Huntsville." The blogger there, Steven Taylor, is now desperately back-tracking after the additional evidence Dr. Joyner was asking for has proved Bishop's critics right. But Taylor doubles down anyway, "Cheap Political Points and the UAH Shooting." Might I suggest that the dude just STFU, since he's obviously eating big crow at this point.

Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain's been on the case, for example in his piece yesterday, "‘Random Tragedy’ Not So Random: Socialist Serial Killer Amy Bishop." And now he updates with more, "‘Almost Never’ Is Once Too Often." It turns out that Dr. Joyner's getting some grief over his "balanced" analysis on the matter, although he reiterates his main point, "As I’ve previously noted, her politics seem rather irrelevant."

And they would be, except that as soon as we have a high-profile murder anywhere in this country, speculation immediately focuses on political motives. Leftists have no problem looking at the political affiliations of a James von Brunn or a Scott Roeder. But as soon as we have a Malik Nadal Hasan or an Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab we can't jump to conclusions!

And frankly, my initial post was a cut-and-paste job with no original commentary. Being "Harvard-trained" is almost clue enough as to Professor Bishop's ideology, and while a posting or two at RateMyProfessors is statistically insignificant, that fact alone doesn't preempt discussion of her political positions.

In any case, with reference to late reports on Dr. Bishop, I think my good friend Dave in Boca pretty much nails it:

Turns out she shot her brother in MA twenty-some years ago fatally with three bullets, but the [then] DA [now] Dem Congresscritter Delahunt didn't think that was worthy of a trial & the case was DROPPED. I guess he recognized another libtard in Amy & let her go free to get her PhD in bioethics/neuroscience & kill three more people---this will be ignored by the MSM, and she will be protected from excessive investigation by the Dem criminal racket squads.

Britain's Sexiest Female Farmer

Via Theo Spark, at the Telegraph UK, "Blonde Anna Simpson Has Been Voted Britain's Sexiest Female Farmer":

Miss Simpson said: ''I think many people believe a stereotypical farmer is a man in his 60s but I wanted to show they can also be young women, who want to get stuck in but also enjoy a night out.

''When they told me I'd won I thought it was a wind-up. I saw the competition and I thought I'd give it a go and I was short-listed which was brilliant.

''I was quite surprised I got through as there were so many good entries so I'm really happy. I won £250 but I think the title alone is a great thing to have."

Tim Relf, of Farmers Weekly, said: ''Forget the old, stereotypical image of farmers as straw-chewing and scruffily dressed. That's history. They're seriously sexy.

Dick Cheney Hammers Obama Administration on National Security

From ABC News, "EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Attacks Biden, Obama on National Security":

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an exclusive appearance on ABC News' "This Week," offered a sharp critique of the Obama administration's handling of national security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying any achievements over the past year largely stemmed from policies implemented under President George W. Bush.

"If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Earlier Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Cheney "either is misinformed or he is misinforming" about what policies have been most effective in combating terrorists.

Biden has also suggested that Iraq may end up being one of the Obama administration's greatest successes.

"Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy," Cheney said. "If they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today."

I can't think of anything that pisses me off more than the Obama administration claiming credit for victory in Iraq -- and that's saying a lot, given the epic fail of the Obamacrats since 1-20-09.

Also Blogging: Gateway Pundit, GayPatriot, Don Surber and Moonbattery (via Memeorandum). And see also, "‘This Week’ Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney."

Phil 'Hide the Decline' Jones Admits Faked Data

From Newsbusters, "ClimateGate's Phil 'Hide the Decline' Jones Admits Manipulating Data":

ClimateGate scandal says that contrary to what Al Gore and many in the media claim, the debate concerning manmade global warming is not over.

"There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well," Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit told the BBC.

In a lengthy Q&A published at BBC.com Saturday, Jones also said: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.

Maybe most important, Jones explained what "hide the decline" in ClimateGate e-mail messages meant confirming they manipulated data (questions in bold, h/t Sonic Frog via Glenn Reynolds) ....

Now comes the part of the Q&A many will find most interesting:

K - How much faith do you have - and should we have - in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia? Should we trust the science behind the palaeoclimate record?

First, we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data. However, we must use what data are available in order to look at the last 1,000 years.

I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound. Yamal is just one series that enters some of the millennial long reconstructions that are available.

The current interpretation of the tree-ring data is "sound." Yet, Jones earlier said (emphasis added), "There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

This seems especially important given how the "decline" Jones wanted his colleagues to "hide" came from this paleoclimatic data:

Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

This is important, for most people still don't understand what the decline they were trying to hide was.

As Marc Sheppard wrote in December, "[T]he decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists -- those determined by proxy reconstructions." He continued:

Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF], "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990," when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann's series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.

Now, Jones has admitted this to the BBC: "[It] was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."

In simple terms, Briffa's tree-ring data showed a decline in temperatures between 1960 and 1999 that weather stations around the world disagreed with. So, Jones spliced into Briffa's data set the real "instrumental" numbers for that period thereby hiding the decline.

This should raise eyebrows for a number of reasons ....

Lots of folks blogging on this, "Climategate U-turn as Scientist at Centre of Row Admits: There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995":

Althouse, American Thinker, AmSpecBlog, Another Black Conservative, Betsy's Page, Bishop Hill, Blue Crab Boulevard, Confederate Yankee, The Corner, Don Surber, Doug Ross, Fausta's Blog, Gateway Pundit, GayPatriot, Hot Air, JammieWearingFool, Jules Crittenden, Macsmind, Moonbattery, No Sheeples, Ruby Slippers, Stop The ACLU, Vox Popoli, and Weasel Zippers.

Video Hat Tip: Neocon Express, "Too Much Snow? It's GW. Not Enough Snow? It's GW":

You cannot win with the 'Global Warming' crowd. Now that everyone is buried in snow, they claim 'Global Warming' causes too much snow ...

Democratic Congressional Candidates Keep Distance From Obama

From the Los Angeles Times, "Some Democrats Keep Distance From Obama":

As President Obama's approval ratings sag and the mood of voters sours, some Democratic congressional candidates are distancing themselves from the White House, with the back-channel blessing of party officials.

The candidates are positioning themselves as independent voices no less frustrated with the Obama administration than people back home.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat who represents a California Central Valley district burdened by high unemployment and home foreclosures, said in an interview: "The Obama administration has failed miserably in trying to solve the problem."

Rep. Jim Costa, a Democrat who also represents California's Central Valley, blames Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for not doing enough to alleviate a drought that has hobbled farmers. Costa said his phone calls to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have gone unreturned.

"They're not listening carefully enough to the people I represent," Costa said.

Asked whether he wants the president to campaign for him, Costa said: "I'm more popular in my district than the president."

Far from discouraging an independent stance, the White House political operation and the Democratic congressional leadership are tacitly putting out word that the strategy may be a useful one, according to party campaign operatives.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview: "Our candidates need to reflect the values and priorities of their districts. And that means on some issues they'll support the Obama administration's position, and on some issues they'll oppose it."

You think?

Obviously those candidates not running away from Obama are down with the administration's crypto-Marxist agenda.

Ideal Conditions for San Bernardino Ski Resorts

That's my new friend Opus #6 skiing with her family, at Snow Summit, in the San Bernardino mountains. I can't remember the last time I went skiing up there!

And I wondered why I missed Opus at the Chuck DeVore rally!

One thing I used to tell folks about SoCal is how we used to surf in the morning, skateboard in the afternoon, and then go night skiing at the local resorts. Actually, I think I only did that once or twice (that's a lot in one day), but it makes a great tale for out-of-staters on the paradise life for us here in the Golden State!

Be sure to bookmark Opus' page as well. She's an awesome conservative mom!

See also, the San Bernardino Sun, "Ideal Conditions for SB Mountain Ski Resorts, Businesses."

Barack Obama Fighting Americans

I've been meaning to highlight Bosch Fawstin's recent artwork, for example, "BARACK OBAMA, FIGHTING AMERICAN(S)."

Good stuff from a good man. More at the link.

Obama Didn't Cut Taxes

Steve Benen and Blue Texan are attacking the tea partiers as "idiots" because they allegedly didn't know that the president "cut taxes." (Via Memeorandum.) Benen links to PolitiFact's analysis of the president's statement at the state of the union that "We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."

But the administration has not cut taxes. It has offered "tax relief" through "tax credits" for wage earners (not the same as tax cuts). Obama, all about gimmicks, has basically been handing out tax rebates like candy while claiming he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But here's some analysis:

From the Wall Street Journal, discussing the Obama tax plan in October 2008: "Obama's 95% Illusion: It Depends on What the Meaning of 'Tax Cut' Is":

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

Now, see also Peter Ferarra, "Tax Cut Mirage":

... the Obama tax cut package studiously avoids any reductions in tax rates anywhere. The centerpiece of the plan is a $500 per worker tax credit, estimated to cost $150 billion. The government will just borrow $150 billion from the private economy to give away in these tax credits, so there will be no net gain to the economy. Nor will there be any improved incentives to save, or invest, or start or expand a business, or hire new workers. The credit does not even provide increased incentives to work, because once the worker is over a very low income threshold of about $8,000 per year, the amount of the credit does not increase for increased work and income.

Interestingly, even the source Benen relies on, PolitiFact, highlights the fact of tax rebates, not reductions in marginal tax rates:

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.

And on the administration's proposed budget, the Heritage Foundation has this, "Obama's Budget Seeks $2 Trillion More in Spending and Deficits Than Last Year":

Addressing Runaway Spending by Raising Taxes

Over the last 40 years, budget deficits have averaged a sustainable 2.4 percent of GDP. Under a budget baseline that assumes current policies continue, nearly 90 percent of the expanded budget deficits by 2020 would be caused by higher spending, while just over 10 percent would be caused by lower revenues--and even that assumes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Yet President Obama bases nearly all of his (modest) deficit reduction on tax increases. Although no economic theory justifies raising taxes during a recession, he would impose nearly $1 trillion in tax hikes for 3.2 million upper-income families and small businesses. He would eliminate tax breaks for charitable giving and the mortgage interest deduction for millions of Americans.

But of course, brilliant Benen and brainy Blue Texan are in good company:

And I almost forgot: Obama is on the verge of repudiating his campaign pledge that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class (those earning less that $250,000 a year). See, "Obama's Middle-Class Tax Pledge in Question as Deficit Challenge Looms."

Chuck DeVore Tea Party Rally!

Orange County Tea Party Patriots (in coordination with OCLA) sponsored a "unique indoor tea party rally" today at the Hills Hotel, in Laguna Hills, California. Below is a crowd shot at about 10:30am. The event is still filling up. Notice on the right the "Hunt for Sheriff" sign. That's Bill Hunt, who spoke passionately about the issues (more on him below):

The event was specifically billed as as "We the People" demonstration designed to send a message to "political machine" leaders in both Washington and Sacramento. The webpage for "Unplug the Machine" is here, and at the badge:

These women are with the Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots):

That's conservative comedian Evan Sayet, just after he spoke:

Dr. Obama Joker was in the house:

This is historical impersonator Peter Small. He did a rousing rendition of Thomas Jefferson, generating tremendous applause with his recitation of the Declaration of Independence:

Here's candidate Bill Hunt, who's running for county sheriff. Not only is he passionate, he's as angry as the angriest tea-partier:

But he's a real friendly guy in person:

This is Dawn Wildman, one of early leaders of the California tea party movement. She spoke about where the tea parties stand today, especially in the context of a major election year in the state:

I didn't catch all of Wildman's speech. My camera was running out of batteries and I ran down to the mini-mart on the corner to get more. On the way back, some fellow patriots were directing drivers and passers-by to the event:

Back inside, here's the tea party sign of a friend who works nearby my college in Long Beach:

One cool thing about the indoor tea parties is that you can really decorate the place:

Chuck DeVore's speech was the main event:

These are your typical Orange County tea party patriots and elderly activists. Whoo!! OMG JOHN BIRCH FASCIST SCARY!!

Here's Chuck after being presented with a "Legislator of the Year" award:

Steve Poizner, candidate for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, also spoke. But the crowd was thinning by that time. (Poizner, who's supposed to be weathly, should be matching Meg Whitman dollar for dollar in the state's advertising wars, but so far it's been all Whitman all the time.)

As grassroots populists, the tea partiers have always prided themselves on their fierce independence from the two major parties. The movement has been anti-government as much as it's been anti-Obama for most of the last year, and RINOs like Dede Scozzafava have no future as GOP candidates as long as tea party activists comprise the bulk of the local primary electorates around the country.

But with today's Chuck DeVore tea party we've seen a formal merger between the tea party base and the most conservative candidates in the California GOP. I've noticed this coming for some time, actually, since at least January, when I reported on Mark Meckler's speech to the Orange County GOP Central Committee. (Local party officials were out-pledging themselves to adopt the most conservative/libertarian principles, and they said they'd bolt from the national party should it sell out the interests of local organizations.)

And note something else: Dawn Wildman spoke of how California's tea party movement is by far the largest in the nation (even bigger than Texas'), and after last May's repudiation of the Schwarzenegger tax-hike initiatives, the California tea parties sent a message nationwide that big-budget tax increases will face massive rejection at the ballot box. Thus the message of tea partiers out west will have dramatic ramifications for what happens elsewhere around the country this year. And recall that when the tea parties gave a dramatic lift to Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the results there showed that activists were pragmatic and focused on good government (and not just ideological purity). All of this is coming together in a way that's almost certain to realign the political system from top to bottom in November.

As we saw last week in Nashville, there's still a lot of debate over the direction of the tea parties and whether the movement will continue to thrive in the absence of a centralized leadership. But from my own activism and analysis of events, it's clear to me that the conservative right has coalesced, pragmatically, around the need to take back power this year; and it may well be that the tea parties have indeed "taken over" the Republican Party. No doubt isolated elections around the country, featuring candidates with diverse constituencies and less competitive electoral circumstances, will take place without a super-mobilized tea party base. But where the GOP is considered competitive in Democratic-controlled districts, folks can expect much more of what we've seen in places like NY-23 and Massachusetts. Indeed, at this point the real focus should be on the candidates themselves, not the tea parties. If the event today was any indication, those in the grassroots will by and large fold their interests with the Republican Party.

We've been witnessing a great awakening of political activism this last year. It's been amazing to see everyday citizens -- many who're participating for the first times in their lives -- get so passionately involved in backing candidates and issues in an effort to restore limited government in the United States. What's been equally amazing is how dramatically the tea parties have destroyed whatever assumptions pundits have had about the direction of national politics in the Obama era. When the president confessed he'd be satisfied to be a "great one-term president," it was totally clear to me that the tea party patriots have gotten a piece of the man, somewhere deep down in the recesses of his being. All of this has been epic, a genuinely revolutionary phenomenon.

Most Politically Correct Olympics Evah!!

We were watching the Olympics' opening ceremonies last night and my wife asks, "Are indigenious people a majority of the population up there?"

Probably not something I would have said in polite company, but what can you do? My wife's not a member of the academy. And she has a point: Do folks discussing the event have to go into overdrive on all the race-sex-and-gender orientations of the performers? Commenting on the wonderful k.d. lang, one blogger goes aggro to highlight the Canadian singer's identity difference (emphasis added):

K.D. Lang was born in Edmonton, Alberta, and the 48-year-old singer is an open lesbian who is a vegetarian and avid animal rights activist. She has received numerous Grammy Awards for her music and in 2008 it was announced that K.D. Lang would receive a star on "Canada's Walk of Fame."

God! Who cares?

But wait! No, no! I need to be assertive! I blogged about k.d. lang a while back, and sheesh, while I admit to not mentioning she's lesbian, at least I had enough respect to keep her name spelled in lower case! That is case-insensitivity! What outrage! And, hey, you'd think p.c. policeman Scott Eric Kaufman would be on it! Talk about dropping the ball!

And if the parade of nations of indigenous people wasn't enough, the whole opening ceremony was -- wait for it! -- boring! This tweet speaks for the multitudes yearning to breathe free ... er, yearning for a reprise of Beijing 2008:

And there's more on that here, "Swollen With Pride By The Olympics’ Opening Ceremony? Not So Much":

The emphasis on the First Nations, while adding plenty of sparkle and feathers and drums, was as politically correct as it could possibly get. It also neatly sidestepped the larger, ongoing Canadian issue — what the hell is a Canadian? It’s a nation of immigrants, like the U.S., but 100 years younger, a nation that only got its very own flag in 1965 and one in which the “cultural mosaic” (keep your own traditions and language) trumps the American ideal of the “melting pot.” If not the First Nations, who, then, would represent Canada and all it stands for? Free health care? Great beer?

I did tear up, briefly, as the snowboarder shot down a mountain through a red maple leaf composed of flare-holding by-standers. The aurora borealis projected on the enormous fabric centerpiece was magical. But having hundreds of dancers was lost in the enormous scale of the stadium. Sarah Mclachlan was hidden (why?) behind a glossy white piano and even Nikki Yanofsky, whose singing I’ve blogged about here, didn’t do much with her rendition of “Oh, Canada.”

Anyway, more here:

After the stunning Opening Ceremony display two years ago in China, Vancouver organizers have smartly downplayed expectations for their show Friday night. With a wildly disproportionate budget, thousands of fewer volunteers and an inability to come close to matching the man-hours put in by Beijing performers, Vancouver couldn't possibly have expected to match the pageantry put on in the Bird's Nest in 2008. But that doesn't mean Friday night won't be special. Officials have said to expect "more emotion than spectacle."

I don't think boredom is an emotion, but I wasn't going to say anything, fearing that I might alienate some previously disadvantaged constituency.

RELATED: Ruby Slippers has a roundup, "FMJRA Roundup: Olympic Gold Edition."

TrogloPundit's a Danica Patrick Hog!

Troglo's pushing back against those allegedly shoehorning on his "Danicalanches." Gator Doug's a prime suspect: "Danica Patrick, NASCAR, and Hits." And Steve's going right for the gut: "Danica Patrick Nude." Sheesh, it's hard out there!

See also Blazing Cat Fur, "Pin Up Wars! ... The Final Battle - It wasn't a Good War! ... It was a Great War!"

Related: From Snark and Boobs, "Good News! Cleavage for Naughty Man Bits!" (via Dan Collins on Twitter).

Amy Bishop Charged With Murder in Huntsville University Shooting

My post last night on Amy Bishop struck a nerve. You can see Femme Patriot's awesome tweet below, and Free Republic's got a running comment thread on it.

Memeorandum has the New York Times report, but see the Huntsville Times, "Amy Bishop Charged With Murder in UAH Shooting":

UAH professor Dr. Amy Bishop has been charged with murder in connection with a deadly shooting that killed three people and injured three more Friday afternoon.

Huntsville police chief said Bishop was charged Saturday morning on three counts of capital murder in the first degree and three counts of assault in the first degree.

The Blog Prof has lots more, "Going Professorial? Alabama Biology Professor Goes on Shooting Rampage Killing 3 After Being Denied Tenure." But see also James Joyner, "Amy Bishop, UAH Prof, Kills Three After Denied Tenure" (emphasis added):

It’s always baffling to me when people try to politicize random tragedies — usually while they’re breaking news stories with little real information. At first blush, Bishop would seem to be extremely bright — a Harvard-trained neuroscientist doing cutting edge work — but with some serious psychological issues. My natural tendency in these mass murder situations is to write the shooters off as mentally ill but the seeming premeditation and obvious revenge motives against the victims would seem contrary evidence.

Lindsey Jacobellis: Least Clutch Athlete Ever?

One video clip asks if Lindsey Jacobellis is the "least clutch athlete ever"?

Although she's got huge Visa sponsorship this year, she pretty much set the "least clutch" bar 2006:

The debate is discussed here: "Lindsey Jacobellis' Silver Lining."

'In Order to Gain Domestic Power'

Stop what you are doing. Take a few moments. A brilliant film. I wish I had a little video robot that I could activate in the face of every America-bashing Democrat spouting the 'Bush lied' meme. But more importantly, this video reminds us that we are at war within. Our enemies aren't solely situated around the world's networks of jihad and in the rogue states in global totalitarianism. We have an murderous enabling class right here at home. It's why people of goodness are rejecting the left's party of defeat, the Democratic Party:

Via Doug Ross and IOWNTHEWORLD.

Amy Bishop, Detained in Huntsville University Faculty Murders, is Harvard-Trained Left-Wing Professor

The main story's at the Huntsville Times, "University of Alabama in Huntsville Biology Professor in Custody Regarding Deadly Shooting at Faculty Meeting."

But AOSHQ has a report, "Three Dead at University of Alabama at Huntsville as Woman Denied Tenure Opens Fire." And FWIW, here's this from Professor Bishop's RateMyProfessors page:

Neuroscience essentially turns into a bioethics class. She's a liberal from "Hahvahd" and let's you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects ...

And from Confederate Yankee, "Professor Snaps, Kills Faculty When Denied Tenure":

What sickens me the most is that according to the story, the Harvard-educated shooter, Amy Bishop, obviously suspected that she was going to be denied tenure, and brought the gun into the meeting to kill those peers who told her she wasn't as good as she thought. Pathetic.

More details at Fox News, "3 Dead in Shooting at University of Alabama Campus." See also, Memeorandum.

Nodar Kumaritashvili, Georgian Luge Slider, Dies in Olympics Training Run

From the Blog Prof, "Video: Olympic Luger Loses Control, Dies at First Day of Olympics":

The Huffington Post has photos..

See also, AFP, "Changes Needed at Death Track, Says Designer."

Added: A slow-motion clip from ABC News, "Georgian Luger Flies Off Track, Into Steel Pole and Dies Before Olympics Start: Nodar Kumaritashvili's Training Partner Says Luger Made 'Mistake' Before Crash." Nodar flew backwards head-first into the pole:

Jefferson Starship to Play Grove of Anaheim

Jefferson Starship will play The Grove Theater in Anaheim, April 29th. Grace Slick retired in 1988. She looks fabulous here, on the Smothers Brothers:

United States Children of Heroes Choir

I had lunch with my wife in San Clemente today. After that I went shopping at the nearby Walmart store. As I was leaving, I met John Wright, the founder of the U.S. Children of Heroes Choir. I loved his table and patriotic pictures and flags. I made a contribution and we talked for a little while, exchanging business cards. I'm going to try to get John to turn out for some local tea parties. His homepage is here: United States Children of Heroes Choir, "To provide for the children of our fallen heroes and the children of those troops so badly injured that they can no longer support their families."

Classy: Mark Thiessen on 'Morning Joe'

The video's at Story Balloon, "Lawrence O’Donnell’s Nutty Meltdown On Mark Thiessen During Morning Joe." Marc Thiessen's calm, cool, and classy.

And from Ed Morrissey:

Anyone who recalls Lawrence O’Donnell’s meltdown with John O’Neill over the latter’s opposition to John Kerry in 2004 won’t be surprised at O’Donnell’s inability to behave himself with Marc Thiessen on today’s Morning Joe. O’Donnell accuses Thiessen of personally conducting terrorism himself and wouldn’t stop shouting, until finally Joe Scarborough took the unusual step of stopping the segment and announcing that he would continue the interview … “by myself.”

RTWT.

Conspiracy of Fear: The Left's Program to Destroy the Tea Parties

I wrote yesterday about the "black 'copter tea party" meme, which is the latest MSM/netroots initiative to discredit and marginalize the tea party movement. In the wake of Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts (where grassroots activists and tea party tweeps helped propel Brown's campaign to victory) you might have noticed the ratcheted effort on the left to demonize and destroy the tea parties. This week's renewed debate over Sarah Palin and the right's crazy "birthers" is just the lastest manifestation. But note that beneath the left's condescension, there's a real fear that the resurgent right will make an earthquake comeback in November, with a likely Republican recapture of one or both chambers of the Congress. This scenario could very well destroy the Obama administration's policy agenda, not to mention Democratic prospects in 2012.

I'm thinking about this after finding this Jennifer Rubin essay, "Fox Uncovers Anti-Tea-Party Slush-Fund Scam" (via TigerHawk and Instapundit). Jennifer cites a Fox News report, "Anti-Tea Party Web Site Part of Scheme to Funnel Funds." And she notes:

Fox has the list of donors, which comprises a set of interlocking slush-type funds that pay for the anti–Tea Party campaign. The largest of these is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME,) which has kicked in a total of $9.9M in a single year to two funds that provide the cash for the non-grassroots movement. Yes — government workers’ money is being used to fend off Tea Party protesters.

It seems that the Tea Party movement, once defamed and derided, now poses a threat to the liberal establishment, so much so that they are collecting millions to undermine it. Conservatives shouldn’t object to political speech — which this is. But there is certainly grounds to object to the chicanery, the lack of transparency, and the pretense that the opponents of the Tea Parties are themselves grassroots activists. They aren’t — this is Big Labor and assorted liberal-interest groups once again doing the bidding of the Democratic party. And if not for Fox, no one would be any the wiser.

It's the left's own conspiracy, actually, and it's a big one.

One little correction to Jennifer's post, however: Actually, Jim Hoft reported previously on organized labor's initiatives to kill the tea parties. See, "Confirmed: “Tea Party Is Over” Website Is Funded By SEIU." Jim is relying on Lee Doren's investigative research. And I posted on this previously myself: "SEIU Tied to 'Tea Party is Over' Smear Outfit."

But Jennifer's right about Fox News. No other outlets are touching this stuff. It's way too damaging to the secretive cabals that prop up the Obamedia Industrial Complex.

Video Hat Tip: "Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration" (via Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots). Click "captions" at the YouTube, lower right, for the lyrics.