'A Pledge to America'

The video's from House GOP Conference Vice-Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA). It's a good one. Yet the Republicans' new "contract" with the American people is more far reaching, "Boehner’s governing platform centers on repealing Obamacare, rolling back of tax increases and regulation."

House Minority Leader John Boehner and the House Republican leadership are set to unveil Thursday their agenda for governing, with an emphasis on repealing President Obama’s health care overhaul and reining in tax increases and regulation.

The plan came under immediate criticism from congressional Democrats but also was brutally savaged by some leading conservatives. The full document can be read here.

Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.com, called the proposal “dreck.”

“The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government,” Erickson wrote.

“This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy,” he said.

But National Review, one of the two leading conservative magazines in Washington, had praise for the document, deeming it “bolder” than the 1994 “Contract with America.”

“The pledge is explicitly a beginning to the lengthy task of providing conservative governance, and a very good one,” the magazine’s editors wrote. “It is also a shrewd political document.”

I'm reading the document now (in PDF). I don't pay too much attention to these things anyway. Parties make pledges all the time. And they often keep their pledges. But they sometimes abandon them as well. What matters to me is focusing on a few key issues, especially those that relate to holding firm on government expansion. Controlling spending and stimulating job growth with tax cuts would be a good place to start. The contract will not abandon social issues, which is good. But Republicans would be wise to avoid the Obama administration's pitfalls. Focus like a laser beam on job creation and spending reductions. With a congressional majority Republicans will be able to stand firm against the social destruction of the Democratic-left. The real business on social issues will be when the GOP again controls the White House (and thus judicial appointments).

Republicans have the choicest electoral --- and hence policy --- environment in decades. I think John Boehner's a smart cookie, so we'll see. I'm going skim over this document a bit more. Perhaps there's a plank on avoiding hubris?

'We Can Absorb a Terrorist Attack'

That's not going over too well. See, "Republicans seize on comments by Obama in new Woodward book" (at Memeorandum):

Republicans on Wednesday blasted President Obama for statements journalist Bob Woodward attributed to him in his new book.

Republicans were particularly incensed about Obama's belief that the U.S. could “absorb” another terrorist attack on American soil, something Obama said he is doing everything he can to prevent that happening.

Liz Cheney, former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter and the chairwoman of Keep American Safe, said the remark “suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration.”

“Once again the president seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe,” said Cheney, a frequent critic of Obama’s national security policies. “The president owes the American people an explanation.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also criticized Obama’s comment on another terrorist attack.

“Well, I don't know that I would have said that. The country has to be prepared for any terrorist attack,” Giuliani said on a conference call with reporters. “I would prefer that the president put his effort in preventing another Sept 11.

Woodward's “Obama's Wars” will not be released until Monday, but details in the book appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Wednesday. Reaction overall was muted, though White House officials portrayed Woodward’s book in a positive light, telling The Hill Wednesday morning that the accounts show a “decisive” president focused on getting the policy in Afghanistan right.

“We are focused on supporting our strategy in Afghanistan and succeeding in our effort to break the Taliban’s momentum and build Afghanistan’s capacity,” one senior administration official said. “The book underscores the importance of our efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda worldwide.”

Liz Cheney's full comment is here: "Liz Cheney Responds To President’s “We Can Absorb A Terrorist Attack” Comment."

I'm not surprised by these comments. Obama hates handling foreign policy and he cares little about even projecting an image that he's working to protect Americans from attack. He does impart an image of protecting his personal brand from attack, and that's not helping him, obviously. And besides, I just don't read Bob Woodward. Check out the book here, in any case: Obama's Wars.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "Woodward Shock Expose: Unqualified Community Organizer With Teleprompter Dependency Makes Surprisingly Lousy Commander-in-Chief."

Van Tran is 'Very Anti-Immigrant and Very Anti-Latino'

That's a pretty harsh castigation. Via Breitbart TV and Memeorandum. And this is local to me as well. I drive through this Garden Grove congressional district on my way to work. The Vietnamese are hardly "anti-immigrant." And of course the O.C.'s historically been home to the biggest Vietnamese community in the nation, initially composed of refugees from the fall of Saigon in 1975. They are among the most patriotic and anti-communist Americans anywhere. That's obviously bad news to the reconquista Dems like Loretta Sanchez and her sister Linda. B2 Bob Dornan, a Republican, held this seat in the old days (pre-1996). That'd be something else if Republicans picked this one up in the upcoming sweep on November 2nd:

Added: Dan Riehl reports that the race is a toss-up. No wonder Sanchez is going extreme.

President Obama's Speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

This is a controversial speech. Some have already taken issue with the president's omission of "God" from his quotation of passages of the Declaration of Independence. But at 21:35 Obama declares:

Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land ...

Mexico gained its independence in 1821. Perhaps Obama means that the indigenous people who later incorporated into Mexico were here first. But he doesn't say that. His statement is like music to the ears of the folks of the CHC in any case. Wrong history that feeds wrong-headed anti-Americanism --- and Obama has the gall to then cite the Declaration (flubbing it) to claim we're all one people. Words matter. And they especially matter when attempting to exploit America's founding documents for political purposes. Yes, we are one people. Yes, we are strong in unity. But this race-pandering divides, and it's been this administration's approach all along: Blame the GOP for obstructionism, not the failed and politically unpopular policies the Dems are foisting on the people. I can't wait until election night. This is going to be the most massive midterm repudiation on record. I can feel it. The Dems are scared. A reckoning is coming.

It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power

My good friend Matt Cassens suggested I ignore these people. But sometimes you have to stand up to the hatred. It was a bit much, all the nasty and genuinely evil attacks launched at Sadly No! Progressives put up over 1000 comments over there, each seemingly more vile and potentially violent. Readers have seen my responses, so folks know I don't buckle to these empty shells imitating humanity. I noted previously that the Sasquatch blogging initiated at JBW's, and was picked up by BJ Keefe. Even LGM and TBogg joined in. A badge of honor in some respects. Over the target, and all that.

Still, while I'm normally pretty inured to this stuff, it's amazing that after actually attempting to engage Brendan at BJ Keefe in an exchange of ideas, I come back to find this comment left later at that entry:

My last name is Douglas. My first is Donald. Both Scottish and Gaelic. As my family name, the origins are found on my father's side. But since my father was black, it's likely that Douglas derived from my father's family's slave background. He was born in Missouri and his immediate genealogy going back a few generations included slave ancestors. My father was a proud man. But my father, born in 1913, battled much bigotry in his life. He didn't speak of it often. But at times stories did come out, not unlike stories folks ofter hear of life under Jim Crow. I think it made him bitter, and up until the day he died he never did fully let go of some of it. I'm proud of my background. But my own struggles with racial identity aren't something that I talk about often. There were bouts of bigotry and racism at times (interracial dating is a difficult thing sometimes, for example), but one doesn't achieve the kind of opportunities in life that I've enjoyed except in a place like the United States. I can't imagine my father's bitterness. That pain is absent in me. That said, you do have to deal with the slights and the slurs occasionally. In this case, with The Pale Scot, I'm actually getting a kick out of it --- it's just too exquisite an example of the oh so common racism that resides just under the top layer of most leftists, and is of course out and proud among the Israel-bashing communists and so forth. "The Pale Scot" apparently worships a white supremacist Scottish lineage, and doesn't see a black man as deserving of the title: "howda a swarthy looking fellow like you end with a fine Scottish name Like Douglas? And a Donald to boot!?" And since this is a pseudonym entered at the comment, it could have been any one of Brendan's regular readers who authored it --- or Brendan himself, since he commented two more times at the post without responding to the slur, nor deleting it. Perhaps exDLB or JBW left the comment. They are both haters, and JBW has enjoyed placing me in subordinate monkey photoshops in the past, so who knows? And I don't really care. All of this matters only to the extent of another revelation of progressive evil. I know where I stand on the issues. I know the moral clarity that is my trademark. Such hatred only strengthens me for the fight ahead. Conservatives are turning the tide against the left, showing that ideology for its bankrupt destruction. So stay with me friends and readers. The journey is long, but always rewarding. Fight for the good and God will be trailing at the rear of your battalions. And that's always good to know, my source of supreme righteousness and confidence.

Keep the Dream Alive – Vote Life, Vote Recovery – Vote 2010

Via St. Blogustine:

Taliban Ambush on U.S. Infantry Company

"Reporter Shares Firsthand Look at Taliban Ambush" (via Theo Spark):

JAMES FOLEY: Alpha Company has fought back with withering firepower, reportedly killing scores of enemy, while avoiding any civilian casualties. But the attacks keep coming. In late August, 2nd Platoon soldiers were preparing to patrol in the town of Asadabad to survey polling sites for the upcoming provincial elections.

They were passing a well-known ambush site when they were hit by a coordinated attack from the surrounding cliffs.

Initially, Private Justin Greer, age 19, manned the turret-mounted grenade launcher while the convoy took fire in the bottom of the steep valley.

(GUNFIRE)

SOLDIER: Give me an ammo (INAUDIBLE).

SOLDIER: Here you go.

JAMES FOLEY: Several minutes into the firefight, Greer was shot in the helmet and knocked from the turret.

SOLDIER: Ah! (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

SOLDIER: In the head.

SOLDIER: Oh.

(SHOUTING)

SOLDIER: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) man.

SOLDIER: Sit up.

SOLDIER: Your helmet saved you, man.

SOLDIER: Hey, is he all right?

SOLDIER: Hang on.

SOLDIER: He's bleeding a little bit, but he's going to be all right.

(GUNFIRE)

SOLDIER: Hang on. Hang on .

SOLDIER: Holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

'Mistress Jade'

This is totally OMFG territory.

At the Tax Prof, "Tenured Professor by Day, Phone-Sex Dominatrix by Night":

Chronicle of Higher Education, In Professor-Dominatrix Scandal, U. of New Mexico Feels the Pain:

In some ways, working as a phone-sex dominatrix is a lot simpler than being on a college faculty. Your relationship with others is clearly defined, no one formally complains about anything you say to them, and you stand little risk of getting caught up in messy struggles over power.

It gets complicated, however, if you try to do both jobs.

Life has become extremely complex in the University of New Mexico's English department in the three years since Lisa D. Chávez, a tenured associate professor, was discovered moonlighting as the phone-sex dominatrix "Mistress Jade," and posing in promotional pictures sexually dominating one of her own graduate students.

Although she quickly quit the phone-sex job, admitted to a serious lapse of judgment, and was not found by the university's administration to have violated any law or policy, Ms. Chávez remains at the center of a bitter controversy that has raised questions about faculty governance, the obligations of professors to protect students, and the exact definition of a hostile workplace in an environment of shifting sexual mores.

Several members of the English department accuse Ms. Chávez of abusing her power over students, and allege that the administration retaliated against professors who complained about her extracurricular activities. They also say that the university administration violated a basic principle of shared governance by not entrusting the investigation of Ms. Chávez to a faculty ethics committee.

For her part, Ms. Chávez has accused her accusers, in complaints to the university and the state, of discriminating against her because she is bisexual and Hispanic.

Additional links at the post.

Ahmedinejad Threatens War 'Without Boundaries'

It's a fascinating thing in politics and culture when the sexist remarks of the Democratic Senate Majority Leader get bigger buzz-play than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of an epic holocaust against the United States. But that's the nature of partisanship these days, especially on the left, where so many socialist lackeys see the U.S. and Israel as the greatest threats to world peace. No surprise, I guess. And this shouldn't be either: "President Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries'" (via Memeorandum):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned the Obama administration today that if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, the U.S. will face a war that "would know no boundaries."

The Iranian president, who is in New York for the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, spoke at a breakfast meeting with reporters and editors at Manhattan's Warwick Hotel.

He said that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, and warned Israel and the U.S. against attacking its nuclear facilities.

Asked about the possibility of a U.S.-supported Israeli air strike against Iran, the fiery Iranian leader said an attack would be considered an act of war, and suggested the U.S. is unprepared for the consequences. Such a war "would know no boundaries," Ahmedinejad said. "War is not just bombs."

Also, at JPost, "Ahmadinejad: Iran will never recognize 'Zionist regime'." And more at Fox News, "Ahmadinejad Warns of Capitalism's Defeat in Tepid U.N. Speech."

Pamela has photos from the protest: "Hitler in New York."

Andrew Sullivan on Failure of DADT Repeal

I rarely read Sullivan anymore. He's an afterthought, really. But clicking on his link right now at Memeorandum I find an interesting bit of drama, frankly. The video's a year old, but it's a change of pace worth sharing at the least. He's certainly articulate, not to mention passionate. "The gay community has been betrayed by its leadership," he warns. I favor repeal, so that puts me on the same side as Sully on this issue. I probably can't put in another good word for him, however. So, for what it's worth, "McCain Wins On DADT":

I think this could be a huge deal for the relationship between gay voters and the Democratic party. Over 75 percent of the public wants the ban ended, and yet even when the Democrats control both Houses and have a president opposed to the policy, they failed to end it in two years. Why? Because, sadly, it was not a real priority; and because the main lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, is so enmeshed in the Democratic party establishment, it has no clout at all.

RELATED: Joe.My.God is alleging that a staffer in Senator Saxby Chambliss' office left a comment at the blog saying "all faggots must die." Obviously not good, if true, although something feels just too neat about this story, and considering how far lefties will go to destroy conservatives, I'm waiting 'till all the facts are in.

'We’re going to vote on the DREAM Act. It's only a question of when'

Michelle's been live-blogging the congressional action. That's Harry Reid's lament at the end of the day. Below is Sharron Angle's new ad:

RELATED: "Republicans stall immigration Dream Act."

Senate Republicans Block Repeal of DADT

And Lady Gaga's not pleased.

At Politics Daily, "Republicans Block Repeal of Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy":

Senate Republicans blocked the Defense Department bill Tuesday, objecting to gay rights and immigration language in the annual legislation that sets policies and spending levels for the Pentagon. Majority Democrats, needing 60 votes to break a filibuster and begin consideration of the bill, fell short 43 to 56. Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor joined all 40 Republicans in voting no.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted against the bill, but for procedural reasons. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) missed the roll call.

GOP senators said two controversial additions -- language to begin the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military and a last-minute amendment based on the DREAM Act to give young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they complete two years of college or serve that long in the military -- made the bill impossible to support.

"In Senator Reid and the Democrats' zeal to get re-elected, they've used a cynical political ploy to try to galvanize and energize their base," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the top Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "In the case of the DREAM Act, it's the Hispanic vote...The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is an appeal to the gay and lesbian base. I've been around here a long time and I have never seen such a cynical use of the needs of our men and women in the military."

RELATED: "Lady Gaga and Harry Reid's Twitter Lovefest on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'."

Ground Zero Imam's Group Trained New York Times Mosque Reporter

Surprise. Surprise.

At NewsBusters:

A New York Times reporter, who has co-authored several fawning articles on the Ground Zero mosque, previously attended a media training program run by the mosque's organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, according to the group's website.

The journalist, Sharaf Mowjood, participated in an April, 2009 media training program led by Rauf's American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), reported the Investigative Project on Terrorism on Sept. 20. Rauf founded ASMA in 1997, and currently serves as the group's CEO.

Mowjood's first article on the Ground Zero mosque - a glowing, 1,200-word piece titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero" - was co-authored with Ralph Blumenthal in December, 2009. All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the Ground Zero project or lauded its leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Mowjood was also a contributing reporter to a similarly sympathetic piece on the mosque on Aug. 11, as well as a flattering front-page profile on Rauf that ran in the paper on Aug. 22.

And get this:

In addition to his ties with ASMA, Mowjood also held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) up until at least March of 2008. CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations.

Excerpts from Mowjood's work could possibly pass as press releases for groups like CAIR or ASMA. His Times articles were extremely favorable toward Rauf and the Ground Zero mosque.

I'd be understated to say I'm bothered.

But what can you do but just keep fighting. I mean, wow.

Bristol Palin on Dancing With the Stars

So Bristol did pretty well last night?

Los Angeles Times has a bit on that, and Robert Stacy McCain let's it rip like no one else: "Levi Johnston is a total loser who’s never gonna have another chance at anybody half as fine as Bristol Palin!"

Talking Points Memo Defends Sexist Harry Reid's Announcement of Kirsten Gillibrand as 'Hottest Member' of the Senate

I couldn't pass this up.

The main story's at Politico, with a lengthy thread now building at Memeorandum. The best part is how the lefties are all over the place on this. An outraged Melissa McEwan slams the Democratic Majority Leader, for example:

Oh, well, as long as he praised her for her work, then it's totally fine that he SEXUALLY OBJECTIFIED A SITTING US SENATOR.

The Democrats want my support, my money, and my votes. They constantly assert to be the party that values women and women's issues. And yet their Senate Majority Leader publicly humiliates a fellow Democrat by commenting on her "hotness" at a fundraising event, and then sends out his spokesperson to argue with a straight fucking face that it's not inappropriate.

I just...wow.

I probably wouldn't put it in so many words, but I doubt I could get away with calling some of my female colleagues the "hottest" members of the department. Thus it's pretty hilarious that TPM's going to bat for Senator Reid:

It should be noted that Gillibrand was in fact recently declared number three on The Hill's Top 50 Most Beautiful People list -- and neither of the top two are members of the Senate. So logically speaking, this would make her the hottest member of the Senate according to a major Washington publication.

So objectifying New York's junior senator as a "hottie" is totally cool then. Hey, a "major Washington publication" says she's hot, so let's just follow the drill at a party fundraiser. Got it.

Meanwhile, Weasel Zippers removes the, er, blinders:

Change! Health Insurers Drop Coverage for Children Ahead of ObamaCare

At The Hill (via Memeorandum):

Health plans in at least four states have announced they're dropping children's coverage just days ahead of new rules created by the healthcare reform law, according to the liberal grassroots group Health Care for America Now (HCAN).

The new healthcare law forbids insurers from turning down children with pre-existing conditions starting Thursday, one of several reforms Democrats are eager to highlight this week as they try to build support for the law ahead of the mid-term elections. But news of insurers dropping their plans as a result of the new law has thrown a damper on that strategy and prompted fierce push-back from the administration's allies at HCAN.

The announcement could lead to higher costs for some parents who are buying separate coverage for themselves and their children at lower cost than the family coverage that's available to them.

And the HCAN thugs are mad? Costs drive behavior. Businesses want to stay in business. The administration's commie-care health plan is driving firms out of the market. Simple as that.

More details at WaPo, "Major health insurers to stop offering new child-only policies."

Hamas Video Threatens Gilad Shalit

At Jerusalem Post, "Schalit family attacks Hamas posting of new Youtube clip" (via Memeorandum):

Family denounces Hamas's "ongoing war crime;" video shows Schalit surrounded by two masked men, concludes with sound of gunshots.

In response the video, the Schalit family released a statement on Monday attacking Hamas's actions. The statement read, "[We are] troubled that instead of worrying about the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel, Hamas leaders have chosen to continue holding Gilad, our son, captive as a hostage for their political aspirations, an act which is an ongoing war crime according to international law."

The statement continued, "In addition, Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus are not hesitant to add, and even take a new approach, to the psychological warfare of the lowest level against the Schalit family, instead of respecting international law and conventions."

Hamas posted a video of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit on Youtube on Monday, suggesting he would be killed if a deal was not soon reached.

In the animated video, two masked men are shown standing on either side of Gilad Schalit in a dark room, with one of them holding an AK-47 assualt rifle.

At the end of the 24-second video, gun shots are heard as the movie goes black and the words "Is the mission completed?" are seen written in Arabic.

In response the video, the Schalit family released a statement saying that, "The Schalit family is troubled that instead of worrying about the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel, some of which could have been at home long ago, Hamas leaders have chosen to continue holding Gilad, our son, captive as a hostage for their political aspirations, an act which is an ongoing war crime according to international law." The statement continued, "In addition, Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus are not hesitant to add, and even take a new approach, to the psychological warfare of the lowest level against the Schalit family, instead of respecting international law and conventions."

Jawa Report has more, "Facebook Jihad: KILL A JEW DAY/JihadTube: KILL A JEW DAY (Hamas/Galid Shalit)."

'Sanctimonious Bigots' – Leftist Professors and Double Standards

Sanctimonious?

I doubt that's a strong enough condemnation, but hey, there's no anti-Semitism on the left, right? There are two links, at Beltway Confidential, "Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’," and FrontPage Mag, "Leftist Professors and Double Standards."

After Dr. Fred Gottheil found an anti-Israel petition signed by "900 Academics" he decided to conduct a similar project: launching a " Statement of Concern," an academic petition "expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians ..." Professor Gottheil, who teaches economics at the University of Illinois, was completely ignored. He didn't hear from anyone. He chalks up the double-standard to the usual suspects: anti-imperialism and not a little bit of anti-Semitism. And he concludes at the FrontPage interview:

The academic leftists are caught in an ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making. It turns out that with all their professing of principle, they are sanctimonious bigots at heart. And some are so obsessed about Israel that they would undermine their own self interest. Witness the faculty in gender studies who signed the anti-Israel petition but didn’t sign my “Statement of Concern” which is about discrimination of women, gays, and lesbians in the Muslim Middle East. Sort of pathetic, actually.

Confronting the Ideology of Hate

See Andrew Marcus, "Andrew Breitbart Forces President Obama’s Protesters to Fold Up Shop" (via Memeorandum):

Chris Coons' New Attack Ad On Christine O'Donnell

Via AoSHQ:

Dilma Rousseff, Former Marxist Guerrilla, Set to Become Brazil's President

Yeah, because there are no communists anymore, well, not the "bad" ones, at least.

From London's Telegraph, (via Theo Spark):

She is a former Marxist guerrilla whose organisation once stole $2.5 million from the safe of the governor of São Paulo.

Locked up and tortured by the dictatorship which ran Brazil during the 1970s, she was once branded by a prosecutor as the "Joan of Arc of subversion".

Yet in less than a month's time Dilma Rousseff is on course to become Brazil's first woman president, entrusted with running the largest and fastest-growing economy in Latin America ....

For someone who was once an active member of an armed Marxist group, fighting to overthrow the dictatorship, it is quite a change.

The daughter of a middle class Bulgarian immigrant and a schoolteacher in Belo Horizonte, southeastern Brazil, she realised upon leaving a privileged school that the world was "not a place for debutantes".

She was 16 when Brazil fell prey to a military coup in 1964 and like many was soon drawn into the world of underground opposition.

Introduced to Marxist politics by the man who became her first husband, Claudio Galeno, she helped build up one of the guerrilla organisations trying to overthrow the government - at one point spending three years in prison.

After democracy was restored she had a daughter, Paula, now a 33-year-old lawyer, with her second husband Carlos Araújo, a revolutionary leader who had met Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. She trained as an economist she entered conventional left-wing politics and professional public service.

In 2001, by now divorced again, she joined Lula's Workers' Party and her experience in the country's energy ministry quickly impressed the new president. A cabinet job as energy minister followed before she was appointed his chief of staff in 2005.

But many have questioned how she can be running for the presidency.

Critics say she was simply the last senior Lula crony standing since one aide after another was forced to quit in scandals over alleged slush funds, bribery or blackmail - including, last week, her own former aide who had followed in her footsteps as Lula's chief of staff.

Her lumbering speaking style and lack of personal charisma do not make her an obvious candidate and - in what was seen as a thinly-veiled attempt to protect Ms Rousseff - the government made it illegal for television and radio broadcasters to make fun of the candidates.

'I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class, and I'm waiting, sir, I'm waiting.'

Man, that's harsh. And it's a black woman who voted for The One back in the day. She says she's "exhausted of defending you." Brutal. The story's at New York Times, via Sister Toldjah (and Memeorandum):

Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea

I had a brief exchange the other day with Brendan of BJKeefe blog. I don't normally go over there, but his link showed up in my Sitemeter and I found a post suggesting that someone should "take the shovel away from Donald Douglas." Brendon apparently thinks leftist demonization is a barrel of monkeys, and as I disabled comments to avoid the abuse, Brenden writes: "Nothing like the wingnutosphere's love for the frank and open exchange of ideas!" Check the post for what follows. Actually, it turns out Brendan's not so intellectually prepared for the "open exchange of ideas." For starters, I left one of the Sadly No! sample comments from my blog: "... you're nothing but a bag of meat and your thoughts and desires are meaningless and you are a worthless piece of" shit. Sure. And I guess that's quality high-octane exchange for lefties. So I respond to Brendan, "So you wanna debate, bonejobkeefe? Bring it on." And what's he do? Runs from debate!

Thanks also for the invitation to debate. Perhaps someday we shall. I do not think it likely in this case, however. Take whatever admiration you have for David Horowitz and multiply it by -100, and that will approximate how I feel about him. On this matter, to borrow from someone whose name I have forgotten, sorry, but our views of reality do not overlap sufficiently to make discussion possible.

For the record, my own sense of Horowitz is this: If in the past decade he's said anything beyond "Yes, waitress, I'll have some more coffee, please" that isn't utter lunacy, it's escaped my notice. One does not engage with so determined a conspiracy theorist. One simply abandons him to his milk crate at Speakers' Corner and seeks more worthwhile voices elsewhere.

I would say in particular that this phrase from your blurb of his book -- "the freakish nihilism of the radical left" -- doesn't even make sense in light of what this book of his is supposed to be about: "the Left has continued to advance its socialist schemes …" Stipulating for the moment that We have such an Agenda, it can hardly be said to be nihilist to have one -- to seek to advance a different social order (or to foist one upon you, if you insist) is not at all the same thing as wanting to do away with any and every social order, just for the sake of destruction.

Two things of interest right away: (1) The complete dismissal of David Horowitz's ideals as sheer lunacy, and (2) the rejection of my use of the phrase "freakish nihilism" to describe the ideological agenda of the left. There's a word for this: Anti-intellectualism. And that stance marinates in a devilish sauce of hard left-wing hubris and deceit. It's further soaked in hatred, for to hate one's enemies is to categorize them as beyond the pale of reason and civilization. Perhaps there's some psychology at work for Brendan. Someone as esteemed as David Horowitz, who lived through --- in direct participation --- all the cultural revolts of the last couple of generations, is ridiculed as a crazed milk crate screamer? Brendan certainly thinks he's got it all figured out. But I doubt he's actually read the book in question, Horowitz's The Politics of Bad Faith. I respond at the post, in any case:

I guess we have nothing to talk about then, since with the exception of Melanie Phillips, I can't think of someone more penetratingly clear on the left's ideological campaign of death and destruction. (And you're down with that, apparently.)

And seriously, you should at least read the book (cited at the link below) before you blow off "nihilism." The left has recycled Soviet Marxism-Leninism, giving a pass to the murder of 100s of millions. When those apologies for totalitarianism --- what leftist refer to as "actually existing socialism" --- become a defense of a failed ideology, all you have left is utter nothingness, hence nihilism.

Now note something here: This is substantive. There are ideas on the table, postulates to consider. It doesn't matter who's producing them. A hypothesis is just out there, to be evaluated. And how does Brendan respond? With more anti-intellectualism. My comment was caught in the Blogger spam filter, and Brendan takes that as a launch pad for some wise cracks, and then the non-response:

I have to say, now that I have restored your comment of 1:57 PM, September 18, 2010, maybe I am not completely surprised that it got flagged as spam. Because it sure does read just like the wingnut chain emails one sees on Snopes, for example. Are you really a college professor? At an accredited school? And not, say, teaching math or something?

Anyway, our discussion so far:

You: Let's debate! Let's talk about David Horowitz and how great he is!

Me: There, we have nothing to talk about.

You: Let's talk about David Horowitz and how great he is! No, how he's greater than great!!!1! Because left nihilist leftist soviet Marxist death evil left effete dark side BLARGH BLARGH blargh …

Me: Nice milk crate.

And so, David Horowitz, and myself, apparently, are out standing on a corner, on milk boxes, raving like alleged lunatics? This is what Brendan calls debate. As I said, concepts are in play here. Ideas have consequences. Why is it that Democrats utter nary a peep when declared Stalinist ideologues wind up gaining access to the top levels of the Obama administration? These same folks, including many Democrats in Congress --- including dozens who have open affiliations with the Democratic Socialist Party of America --- call for and implement a Castro-style healthcare regime in the U.S. Of course, these people blow off the mass murder and desolation of the such communist thugs. It's not what they do, it's the ideals of humanity and transcendence that count! And thus with Brendan, to contemplate the nothingness in the wasteland of leftist neo-communist ideology is to scream "BLAARRGGHHH!!"

Yeah. And how about that "exchange of ideas" Brendan was pumping up? Not so much, eh?

But that's not all. Brendan tells me to "grow up." No kidding:

I was not typing "Blargh" in response to your effort to twist the definition of nihilism to fit your own preconceived notions. It was in response to everything else.

Seriously, Donald, be your age. Do you really think you're going to interest me in any sort of discussion where you start off by howling how everything Left is irredeemably evil? I'd just as soon discuss spherical geometry with a Flat Earther.

This is pure dismissal. It's definitely not intelligent discussion. Check the link to the post. I'm not going to waste more time on someone who is that closed-minded, at least not at that entry. What you see here is the notion that leftist ideology is UNCHALLENGEABLE. There's nothing that can penetrate the hard-shell of neo-communist ideology. Anyone with a different idea is literally a "Flat Earther."

Truly amazing. Meanwhile, these people and their grand schemes for a nationalization of the U.S. health delivery system under ObamaCare socialism are running for the hills. It's not working. Costs are not going down. Firms are responding by not hiring, precisely at the same time that unemployment keeps rising. It's statism that's failing, and the idea that state planning --- THE CENTRAL COMPONENT OF ALL SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY --- is proving just one more disaster rammed down American throats by the mandarins of the Democrat-Socialist Party in Washington.

I don't know how old Brendan is. He is idealistic. Perhaps the real world will intrude sometime in his life, and he'll learn to appreciate an actual argument for what it is an not the twisting evasion of some wingnut hokus pokus.

In any case, sometimes it's necessary to actually read the writings of your political enemies. (I didn't love wading through Markos Moulitsas' American Taliban, but I don't begrudge him for writing it. I know exactly where he stands now, and I'm all the more determined to resist him.) Perhaps Brendan might actually exhibit a little bit of personal maturity and actually attempt to engage some of these ideas, for example, this passage on Page 57 of The Politics of Bad Faith:

Totalitarianism is the possession of reality by a political Idea --- the Idea of socialist kingdom of heaven on earth; the redemption of humanity by political force. To radical believers this Idea is so beautiful it is like God Himself. It provides the meaning of a radical life. This is the solution that makes everything possible; the noble end that justifies the regrettable means. Belief in the kingdom of socialist heaven is faith that can transform vice into virtue, lies into truth, evil into good. In this revolutionary religion, the Way, the Truth, and the Life of salvation lie not with God above, but with men below --- ruthless, brutal, venal men --- on whom faith confers the power of gods. There is no mystery in the transformation of the socialist paradise into Communist hell: liberation theology is a satanic creed.

I'll have more later. Maybe tomorrow, even.

Obama's Assault on the Tea Parties

Love that Drudge Report graphic. And the link goes to NYT, "Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party." (Via Gateway Pundit and Memeorandum.) I'm reminded of the debates we have on crowd size whenever there's some big tea party event. Remember the Glenn Beck rally? Check the links here and here to see how invested folks were in attempting to minimize the significance of the event. Steve Benen, one of those seeking to minimize the heft of the tea parties, wrote on August 28th, the day of Glenn Beck rally at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:

Beck and his minions don't quite appreciate why they're an embarrassment to themselves, and that's a shame. They can't comprehend why King was a giant, and Beck is a small, sad cynic. They have no idea why America is so much better and stronger than their hate-filled demagoguery.

And now, the administration is planning an ad blitz to sow a campaign of disinformation against the tea parties? So much for that America that is "so much better and stronger." This is the sound of abject fear:

President Obama’s political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a range of ideas, including national advertisements, to cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists, people involved in the discussion said.

White House and Congressional Democratic strategists are trying to energize dispirited Democratic voters over the coming six weeks, in hopes of limiting the party’s losses and keeping control of the House and Senate. The strategists see openings to exploit after a string of Tea Party successes split Republicans in a number of states, culminating last week with developments that scrambled Senate races in Delaware and Alaska.

“We need to get out the message that it’s now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party,” said one Democratic strategist who has spoken with White House advisers but requested anonymity to discuss private strategy talks.

Obama, Netanyahu, and the Perils of Peace Talks

From Caroline Glick:

The current flurry of diplomatic activity is deeply disturbing. It isn't simply that the Obama administration has strong-armed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into participating in diplomatic theater with the PLO whose successful completion will leave Israel weaker and less defensible. It isn't merely that the newest "peace process" diverts our leadership's attention away from Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

The most disturbing aspect of the latest round of the diplomatic kabuki is that Israel's leaders and Israel's staunch friends in the US are enthusiastically participating in this dangerous project.

True, Netanyahu is in an unenviable position, situated as he is between US President Barack Obama's rock and hard place. Instead of standing up to this hostile American leader, Netanyahu is desperately seeking a magical concession to get Obama off his back.

Netanyahu's preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive. It is ironic because he has turned to appeasement at the very moment that the notion it is possible to appease Obama has self-destructed.

Ten months ago Netanyahu found what he hoped was a magic concession. Capitulating to Obama, the Jewish state's leader prohibited all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria for a period of 10 months. This unprecedented move to discriminate against Jews was supposed to get Obama off Netanyahu's back. It didn't.

Obama's public demand this week that Netanyahu extend the abrogation of Jewish property rights shows he will not be appeased.

There is no magic concession. Every concession to Obama - like every Israeli concession to the Arabs - is considered both permanent and a starting point for further concessions.

And so Netanyahu concedes more. Not only has he effectively agreed to extend the discriminatory ban on Jewish rights. Netanyahu has moved on to even more outrageous concessions.

According to the Lebanese media, Netanyahu has agreed to surrender large swathes of the Golan Heights to Iran's Arab puppet, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. According to the reports, Netanyahu empowered Obama's emissary George Mitchell to present his offer to Assad in Damascus and even furnished Mitchell with detailed maps of his proposed surrender.

If Netanyahu thinks that this move will diminish US pressure for a full withdrawal from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he is in for an unpleasant surprise. Mitchell made this clear at his press conference Wednesday. Mitchell said the "two tracks can be complementary and mutually beneficial if we can proceed to a comprehensive peace on more than one track."

In plain English that means that the administration feels perfectly comfortable pressuring Israel to surrender to the Syrians and to the Palestinians at the same time.

RTWT.

Reagan Responds

Via Far Left Coast:

Truths About the Political Left

Revealed by the debate over Ground Zero, via Dennis Mitzner:

The left’s contempt for the majority of Americans is an indication of its soul. The left has abandoned the principles of universal values at the expense of defending and tolerating the indefensible and the intolerable. It is now an insular mass movement which has become largely blind to its own failures.

RTWT.

O'Donnell Responds

At Fox News (via Michelle):

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell responded to old clips that surfaced over the weekend where she said she had once “dabbled in witchcraft,” clarifying at a GOP picnic in Delaware Sunday, “I was in high school, how many of you didn’t hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, There’s been no witchcraft since, if there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter.”

Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

There's a post at Down With Tyranny! that's nothing but outrageous. It's not new, since I've reviewed this before, but to consider the thought that anything Christine O'Donnell's ever said is remotely as dangerous as the ideology of jihadi extermination is actually sickening. But this is how the left characterizes its enemies, and the MFM just greases the skids:

The teabaggers, Republicans, republikooks, or whatever we're supposed to call our culture's wackjob element these days are always fine ones to talk about things like "personal liberty" and "taking away our freedoms" but, the Republican nominee for senator from Delaware (who is also an evolution denier) has given us a quick peep at what the Repug set have in store for us in the future if they yank the power of Congress away from the Democrats. They always push it further and further and further. For the Republicans, it's no abortions, no condoms, no birth control of any kind. The kook running against Alan Grayson is opposed to divorces. Their next frontier? No masturbation! No wanking! Will stiff prison sentences be proposed? Who will be checking? Will this require some new "big government" agency with a spanking new building? What will outside columns and the statue in the lobby look like? Expect a rise in juvenile crime. And, of course, Republicans will soon be requiring all women to wear burkas (but don't you dare mention The American Taliban which is so mean to rightists). Who needs crazy Muslim fundamentals when we have plenty of crazy Republican fundamentals right here, right now. Made in America!

Digby thinks it's all hilarious. And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl:

Slate's Jacob Weisberg Slurs Tea Partiers as Anarcho-Terrorists

Here's yet another example of how totally FUBAR is today's MFM. Behold Jacob Weisberg' s piece at Slate, "The Right's New Left: The Tea Party Movement Has Two Defining Traits: Status Anxiety and Anarchism." Here's the screencap. The image looks like Ben Franklin throwing a Molotov cocktail:

And after an obligatory introduction on the recent primaries and how the Republicans are getting sucked in by the movement's "gravitational pull," Weisberg adds this:

What's new and most distinctive about the Tea Party is its streak of anarchism—its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent style of self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.

In this sense, you might think of the Tea Party as the Right's version of the 1960s New Left. It's an unorganized and unorganizable community of people coming together to assert their individualism and subvert the established order. But where the New Left was young and looked forward to a new Aquarian age, the Tea Party is old and looks backward to a capitalist-constitutionalist paradise that, needless to say, never existed. The strongest note in its tannic brew is nostalgia. Tea Partiers are constantly talking about "restoring honor," getting back to America's roots, and "taking back" their country.

Besides throwing out allegations of racism, Weisberg doesn't add much more than smear tea-partiers as anti-constitutionalist bomb-throwers. Basically, he's looking to brand the tea parties as an anarcho-terrorists movement about to reach hair-trigger status. He's also offering a revisionist history of the '60s-era "New Left." These so-called young Aquarians included folks like William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. The Weather Underground was a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian movement on the left. It used violent direct action in attempting to destroy the United States and the world system of U.S.-backed "imperialism." Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism was the movement's key manifesto, which states: "Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."

I have yet to find any tea parties advocating an agenda resembling anything remotely like those of the most violent '60s-era revolutionaries. At most we've had activist groups looking for a renewed federalism that dramatically weakens federal power. This is not about destroying the constitutional order. It's about restoring some originalism in American politics, and resisting the further encroachment of the European Welfare State Leviathan.

And of course, Weisberg omits the real anarcho-terrorists who have been mobilizing over the last couple of years, especially in California.

Last March saw a wave of anarchist violence in the state, with UC Berkeley becoming ground zero for some of the most intense campus resistance seen in decades. The City of Oakland was beset by riots and the local Insterstate 80 was shut down by anarchist demonstrators. Last December, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau's home was attacked by torch-wielding mobs. In November 2009, Berkeley's Wheeler Hall was seized by student radicals demanding a rollback of tuition hikes.

And the same coalition of radicals, students, faculty, and outside agitators is preparing for another round of mobilizations in October. See, "National Actions to Defend Public Education, October 7th 2010." If you want the New Left, or the Left's New Left, this is it. There is no anarchism on the right, or at least not among the tea partiers. Weisberg's mistaking tea party constitutional libertarianism for the violent ideologies of the anarcho-radical left. It's a pathetic smear that spreads cheap and damaging disinformation. Par for the course these days, considering how badly the Demcratic Party's bureaucratic-socialist complex is holding up.

Added: See also Lonely Conservative, "Oh, Now They’re Calling the Tea Partiers Anarchists." Also, at JammieWearingFool, "Angry Mob Beats Up Politician."

United Against Nuclear Iran — Ahmadinejad 'Persona Non Grata' in New York

I saw this sign outside of my hotel on 9/11. The American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran has a blurb: "UANI Announces Launch of Advertising Campaign Surrounding UNGA." And JPost has a report, "Ahmadinejad ‘Persona non grata’ in NY, activists declare."

I was reminded of this by Hawkeye, one of my Twitter friends who's spreading the news on the Hilton Hotel's plans to "host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during next month's UN General Assembly meeting." More information here: "Join us in New York to Give Ahmadinejad HELL at the Hilton! Thursday Sept 23, from 9am-noon!"

So That's Ines Sainz...

I saw a couple of bloggers posting on Ines Sainz, who I mentioned last night. Opus 6 featured Ms. Sainz for Rule 5. But checking over at NewsReal I see that Lori Ziganto's got the lowdown, "Ines Sainz: The Woman Who Cried Wolf Whistle." Basically, the woman is super hot, and she's up in arms when testerone-ragin' pro-athletes whistle as she strolls in the locker room. No doubt there are worse cases of sexual harassment. The Frisky's got a roundup: "Today’s Lady News: Sports Commenter Says Ines Sainz Was “Asking For It”."

Added: At Left Coast Rebel, " (PHOTOS) Former Miss Spain Ines Sainz, New York Jets, Harassment Controversy." Also at WyBlog, "The obligatory Ines Sainz vs the New York Jets post."

Heartland Hotties!

Via Theo Spark:

The first-ever film to tell the entire story of the conservative woman in her own words, "Fire from the Heartland" is a powerful statement about America at a crossroads and the women who have awakened to the crisis. With role models such as Clare Boothe Luce, Margaret Thatcher, and Phyllis Schlafly as inspiration, these women are the unintended consequence of the liberal feminist movement.

Tracing the long history of the many conservative women who have been the backbone of this great nation, from the founding mothers of our Republic to today's "Mama Grizzlies," this powerful and compelling documentary honors the self-made American woman.

Activists, politicians and commentators such as Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Dana Loesch, Michelle Easton, Sonnie Johnson, Jenny Beth Martin, Michelle Moore, Jamie Radtke, Deneen Borelli, Janine Turner, and Congresswomen Cynthia Lummis, Jean Schmidt, and Michele Bachmann share their emotional stories of hardship and triumph in their fight for freedom. These women leaders are fanning the flames of liberty across the nation.That's what I'm talkin' about!

Visit the homepage: "Fire from the Heartland."

Washington Rebel: New Crib, Same Hot Blogging!

Visit the new home of Washington Rebel. Some good guys over there. And by the way, Alyssa Milano seems to be a favorite of some folks, and I'm starting to see why. She's interesting on Twitter as well.

Oh, one more thing: What's up with Ines Sainz? First I heard of her this weekend, so I'm out of the loop on Rule 5 lately. I blame Sadly No!, those demons!

Christine O’Donnell — 'I Dabbled in Witchcraft'

Here's how Maureen Dowd describes Christine O'Donnell:

This anti-abortion, anti-masturbation, anti-premarital-sex, anti-stem-cells, anti-gay-marriage, dubious-about-evolution Christian conservative has rocked politics by snatching the Delaware Republican nomination for the Senate away from the seemingly sure-thing moderate Mike Castle.

Interestingly, Dowd goes on to say "We the People in the Ruling Class Elites do think O’Donnell comes across as alarmingly loopy," and that O'Donnell "might have gone a broom too far, though, when she once told Bill Maher that she had 'dabbled into witchcraft” and went on a date with a witch that included “a midnight picnic on a satanic altar'."

Last week's NYT editorial page echoed Dowd's "Ruling Class Elites" sensibilities:

Republican leaders have to decide if they want the tiny fraction of furious voters who have showed up at the primary polls to steer them into the swamp for years ahead. They have a chance to repudiate the worst of the Tea Party crowd and show that they can govern without appealing to the basest political instincts.

So now that Bill Maher is sewing the Scarlett Letter on O'Donnell, the editorial elites at the Times will no doubt soon look to issue their coup d'grâce. I seriously doubt that revelations of Christine O'Donnell's growing pains will have much impact on her electoral chances, especially in this political environment. She's already eccentric. She's already iconoclastic. And she's already scaring the holy guacamole out of the "Ruling Class Elites."

What's especially interesting is how the Wicca Tapes are further exposing the fault lines among right-wing bloggers after the blogosphere blowout before the primary. Both Patterico and Power Line are calling this the end of O'Donnell's career. Meanwhile, Dan Riehl and Jeff Goldstein are taking the long perspective. As Jeff notes:

O’Donnell may turn out to be a total loon. That’s not what I’m concerned about. Nor do I believe she is beyond criticism. What bothers me is the attitude about who is supporting these grass roots conservative candidates that is being made manifest by putative conservatives.

I'd underline that point about "putative conservatives." Patterico and Power Line are over in Think Progress territory on this one, which means George Soros territory. I get a baby barf in my throat just thinking about that.