Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

At The Other McCain, "June 3: Bill Schmalfeldt Begins Cyberstalking Aaron Walker."

Schmalfeldt began trolling Aaron Worthing shortly after the latter published his magnum opus on Brett Kimberlin's legal harassment. Robert has screenshots of some of Schmalfeldt's tweets, and he writes:

this is liberal grouch, serial block an report abuser. Stalking me again @ The_Book_Jerk (remove the space)
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) December 9, 2012

What was Schmalfeldt seeking? Some way to discredit Walker, to create a narrative in which Kimberlin could be portrayed as the victim.

This is the “accuse the accusers” motif that has added layers of unnecessary confusion to this story: By a sort of narrative ju-jitsu — minimizing the deliberate harmfulness of Kimberlin’s actions, while depicting his targets as unethical, selfish or motivated by purposes of political revenge — the “accuse the accusers” strategy creates a false equivalence between victim and victimizer. This method of online obfuscation is effective because few people (including law enforcement officials and judges) have the patience necessary to trace the conflict to its origins, nor do they seem willing to contextualize any particular aspect of the conflict by studying it as part of an overall pattern of behavior.

Schmalfeldt began his involvement by declaring to Melissa Brewer (@catsrimportant) — an ally of Kimberlin and Rauhauser — that he wanted coverage of the Walker case not written by “some right-wing shithead.” He then started to hector Walker, questioning whether the convicted bomber Kimberlin had done anything threatening. Schmalfeldt offered as his motive his “strong views about the First Amendment.”

Keep in mind that, on May 20, Schmalfeldt evidently got himself banned from Daily Kos, where he’d been a diarist less than six months. Schmalfeldt’s stint as a blogger at the Examiner was terminated May 2, after he was accused of abusive conduct toward fellow Examiner contributor Joe Newby. (Shmalfeldt resurfaced June 22 as Examiner columnist “Bill Matthews,” only to be terminated again Aug. 6 after his deception was discovered.) His “strong views about the First Amendment,” we may suppose, involve Schmalfeldt’s antisocial belief that he should be able to say anything to anyone in other people’s privately-owned online space, without regard for the proprietors’ rules or even basic human decency. (See “Bill Schmalfeldt: Too Disgusting For Daily Kos,” Nov. 25, by Lee Stranahan.)

That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda.

For example, when I posted on Pamela Geller's new SOIA campaign yesterday, I linked the hideous left-wing fascist website "The Animal." The pigs there exhorted their readers to take their spray cans to the subways to deface Pamela's advertisements, with the reminder, "you know what to do." And right on cue, criminal harasser Repsac3 found "The Animal" links here and promptly put out his endorsement of that brown-shirted vandalism on Twitter, even quoting approvingly the method of the hate-fueled revisionist attack:

"Any war between man is savage." fb.me/1MVgYq1VJ
— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 8, 2012

Clearly these are not the tweets of someone committed to the free flow of ideas. Like Bill Schmalfeldt, Repsac3 does not go away, even after the authorities have been alerted to his criminal activities. I've blocked him at every turn, here at the blog's new comment system and on Twitter. And I've exposed his obsessive email stalking campaign and provided evidence of those attacks to the police. Even after all of that --- even after the hate-addled Repsac declared that I'd "won the Internet" --- this clinically-deranged asshole still can't keep away, he just can't let it go. His putrid attack-and-harassment blog is still up and running, now being updated daily by the flaming bunghole baker-boy Kevin "Rim-Station" Robbins.

And we know why. Like those of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser axis, Walter James Casper III is marinated in progressive evil, and he too believes that harassing those who speak truth to the radical left agenda is simply just one more acceptable element of the vicious drive to maintain Democrat-Socialist power. These people will stop at nothing. It's no coincidence that Repsac3 was a ringleader for the attacks on my workplace, coordinating his actions with Carl Salonen, and widely endorsing and facilitating the harassment by others, such as the notorious dirtbag (O)CT(O)PUS, a.k.a. David Hillman, the f-king perverted proprietor of The Swash Zone.

Robert Stacy McCain identifies this left-wing pathology as "troll rights":

“Troll Rights” may be an interesting legal concept, but it’s a lousy career strategy. Schmalfeldt entered early June with more than one burnt bridge behind him, and his apparent plan for redemption was to make himself the white knight who would slay the dreaded Aaron Walker dragon that was threatening that noble progressive, Brett Kimberlin.

“The Narcissist as Self-Imagined Hero” — Schmalfeldt isn’t the first such character we’ve encountered. Incapable of accepting responsibility for his own errors and misfortunes, the narcissist instead externalizes blame for his failures, demonizing and scapegoating others. Unwilling or unable to emulate successful people, the narcissist envies them. Viewing success as a zero-sum game, he convinces himself that the game is rigged against him, and that the success of others results from their unfairly taking advantage of the “system,” thus wrongly cheating him out of the rewards and admiration he believes he deserves.

Exactly. Walter James Casper III is another "such character we've encountered." A failed blogger who gets no more than 20 hits a day, he's for years harassed people better than him --- happy and attractive people like Tania Gail --- for no other reason than political disagreement. Repsac3 isn't content to just demonize people and lie about them, he goes so far as to hunt them down and help those launching workplace harassment campaigns. Again and again he's claimed that he will not be rebuffed, that it's his right to ram his noxious opinions down the throats of his enemies. He habituates the comment threads, spiking the football, at all the most reviled progressive attack blogs, from LGM to Sadly No! And it's all just more fun and games. But for the victims, it's online terrorism. Never ---- not once ever ---- has he stood against these attacks. While purportedly all about free speech, he supports trolls and attackers who mount campaigns of online lawfare against political enemies. But take note. Those who ask why bother? Why even deal with people like this, it's not worth your time? Think again. Turning a blind eye to evil simply empowers it by indifference. Robert Stacy McCain has been faced with this question:

Narcissists crave attention, and some people think that the best way to deal with Bill Schmalfeldt is to ignore him. Schmalfeldt started cyberstalking Aaron Walker in June, and I tried to ignore him. It wasn’t until September that his name was first mentioned on this blog. We keep re-learning the same sad lesson:

“It is very easy to decide ‘this isn’t any of my trouble’ and permit vicious behavior. . . . Who wants to get involved? Easier, and surely safer, just to duck one’s head and hide, and hope the danger visits someone else.” – Ace of Spades, May 22

Evil is persistent. Duck your head, shrug your shoulders — “Gosh, too bad what happened to Aaron Walker” — and never mind who will be visited next by this particular specimen of evil. Never mind what innocent person the monsters will choose to victimize, because nobody can be bothered to pay attention to what’s happening.

Head over to Robert's for the full post.

In some ways I've been lucky. I had pro bono legal representation that helped me defend against the literally unimaginable workplace attacks. I'm also a tenured professor with legal protections against the idiot progressives who repeatedly try to have me fired for my conservative beliefs. But from Scott Eric Kaufman to E.D. Kain to Carl Salonen and more, it's been quite the trial. These stupid demons think they can strike me down only to see me emerge stronger and more committed to exposing their deeds. And such moral clarity has only emboldened idiot narcissist Walter James Casper III. He just doesn't know when to quit. Indeed, he can't quit because he's in the grip of a malevolent fever. If he were to vanquish me, silencing my voice, he'd simply notch the victory and move on to his next victim ---- all part of the progressive campaign of demoralization and demonization of right-wing beliefs and traditional values.

This is the scourge of contemporary American politics. These battles are the those at the ramparts of freedom, and often the left has been winning. The lines are clearly drawn and progressive are on the march, but clear-eyed patriots know what's coming and the progressives are overplaying their hands in hubris and conceit.

Never cave to these people. They will not stop their attempts to put you under, but the tide is turning back, little by little, to decency and righteousness. The stakes for our nation have never been higher.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Cartoons."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

More at Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies 12-9-12."

  Cartoon Credit: William Warren.

Nelson Mandela Outed as Communist Party Member After Decades of Denial

Of course he was a Communist. They always lie about their true affiliations. Progressives always lie about their ultimate aims. Their entire ideological program is predicated on deception and propaganda. That's just how these people work.

At Telegraph UK, "Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial":

A new book claims that, 50 years after he was first accused of being a Communist, Nelson Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

For decades, it was one of the enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government of the time alleged? Or, as he claimed during the infamous 1963 trial that saw him jailed for life, was it simply a smear to discredit him in a world riven by Cold War tensions?

Now, nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best-known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustice perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC's military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected "spies" at secret prison camps.

There's lots more at that top link.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

"Needless to say my own 'Why I Hate Barack Hussein Obama' column would not be celebrated as 'daring,' 'honest,' 'bracing,' or 'cathartic.' It would be a hate crime and a symptom of possibly dangerous impulses..."

This is what I hate more than anything else: the hypocrisy, the division of citizens into two classes, the Privileged Class, which has a broad license and range of liberty, and the Disfavored Underclass, whose liberty is sharply restricted...

-- From AoSHQ.

And remember, progs don't like being told how much they suck. But they still suck, and hard.

Ezra Klein: Yesterday's Revenue Can't Support Tomorrow's America

This is a fascinating piece, from the progressive wonder boy, at the Washington Post.

Klein's statistics all seem fine and dandy. He just comes to the wrong conclusion: that taxes must expand rather than spending contract. It's always that way with lefties. The final solution is to engorge government to such levels that all private activity is snuffed out.

While Klein focuses on the degree of taxation as a percentage of GDP, he doesn't consider that the average tax incidence of the individual is already nearing unsustainable levels. We're nearly taxing individuals in blue states at the level of the most generous Scandinavian welfare states. See: "Top Marginal Tax Rate Will Exceed 50% in California, New York, and Hawaii in 2013." California, following the November election, will boast the nation's highest marginal tax rate of 51.9 percent. It's no surprise that California's been bludgeoned by a massive exodus of businesses from the once-Golden State.

In any case, the Ezra Kleins of the world will never learn, for their ideology is one of no restraints, only the never-reached goal of human equality and the perfect resolution of mankind's material needs (in "tomorrow's America"). It is, in another word, Utopianism.

See Victor Davis Hanson for the reality check, at IBD, "Spending, Not Lack of Revenue, Is Real Problem."

Yet Another Batch of Jennifer Nicole Lee Bikini Pics!

That lady is amazing, "Fitness guru Jennifer Nicole Lee struts around in a TINY string bikini... and reads up on diet tips.

PREVIOUSLY: "Oops! She Does it Again! Smokin' Jennifer Nicole Lee Bikini Malfunction in Las Vegas."

Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Families

At the Heritage Foundation, "The Supreme Court’s Challenge: Restore Marriage Decisions to Citizens":

There are many good reasons why citizens in 41 states have said over and over that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. And as ample social science has shown, children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children.

While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and childrearing.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that sees marriage as primarily about emotional bonds or legal privileges. In other words, it is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Same-sex marriage is the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other bonds.

Government should not obscure the truth about marriage by accepting that revisionist view. In redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, government would weaken marital norms, which would further delink childbearing from marriage and hurt spouses and children—especially the most vulnerable. It would deny a mother or father to a child as a matter of policy.

The harms resulting from redefining marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and force the state’s welfare to grow even more. Citizens would lose more of their freedom of religion and conscience.

More at that top link.

And previously, "Same-Sex Marriage and Marxist Revolutionary Doctrine: Destroy the Family."

Instagram Disables Twitter Card Integration

I noticed this the other day while embedding a tweet, from Nick Bilton at NYT Bits "Twitter Loses Ability to Properly Display Instagram Photos":

Welcome to the Photo Wars.

Instagram on Wednesday disabled the ability for Twitter to properly display Instagram photos on its Web site and in its applications. The move escalates tensions between the two companies, which were once friends in the battle against Facebook but have now become direct competitors.

In a status update on Twitter’s Web site, the company said Instagram had disabled its integration with Twitter cards, which are used to display images and content within Twitter messages.

“Users are experiencing issues with viewing Instagram photos on Twitter,” the post said. “This is due to Instagram disabling its Twitter cards integration, and as a result, photos are being displayed using a pre-cards experience.”

Speaking at the LeWeb technology conference, Kevin Systrom, Instagram’s chief executive, confirmed that the company has removed the ability to send pictures to Twitter, and plans to completely cut off embedding pictures on the Twitter Web site.

“We’ve decided that right now, what makes sense, is to direct our users to the Instagram Web site,” Mr. Systrom said, noting that Instagram images will soon no longer be visible on Twitter. “Obviously things change as a company evolves.”

Mr. Systrom did not say when images will cesase to show up on the site.

Morsi Backs Down — For Now

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt's Morsi backs off decree that expanded his power":

CAIRO — In a political reversal to calm weeks of unrest, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi early Sunday rescinded much of last month’s decree that expanded his powers and exposed a dangerous divide between the nation’s Islamists and the mainly secular opposition.

The announcement reverses most of the declaration the Islamist president issued Nov. 22, including putting his office beyond judicial oversight. The peeling away of that power was a major demand of protesters. But Morsi continued to defy the opposition by refusing to cancel a Dec. 15 referendum on a proposed constitution drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly.

The turnaround by Morsi, who in a national address Thursday had refused to budge on his decree, was a signal that he wanted to ease tension that has resulted in clashes between his supporters and opposition groups that have left at least six people dead and hundreds injured.

It was unlikely, however, that reversing the decree but sticking to the referendum vote would appease the tens of thousands of protesters who have marched on his palace in the capital and in cities across Egypt.

“This is not a compromise; the president got all that he wanted,” said Bassem Sabry, an activist and writer. “What the Muslim Brotherhood wants [is to] get the constitution rammed through in a quick referendum before anyone gets a chance to properly discuss it.”

Morsi’s concessions came as news reports indicated that he was preparing to reimpose emergency law to allow soldiers to arrest civilians in response to the latest unrest.

More at the link.

It won't last. Morsi will come up with something else, some other extra-constitutional measures to consolidate the Muslim Brotherhood's choke hold on the state. See Eric Trager's piece from a couple weeks back, at TNR, "Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate."

Same-Sex Marriage and Marxist Revolutionary Doctrine: Destroy the Family

From Victor Volsky, at American Thinker, "Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda":

It is the iron law of "progressive" movements that having achieved their goals, they refuse to fade away.  Rather than disbanding upon completion of their mission, these movements, now fully institutionalized, keep chugging along, and the farther they go, the more they resemble their sworn enemies, the rationale for their existence....

The gay rights movement, too, has been transforming itself before our very eyes.  Once a movement fighting against persecution and discrimination, which is the reason why its initial demands enjoyed wide public support, it has gone from one triumph to another and won the war.  Today, the issue is moot.  But the gay movement has not declared victory and gone home.  Central to achieving their goal is bending society to their will and forcing it to acquiesce to their agenda.

That's where same-sex marriage comes in.  It's no mystery why it commands considerable support.  After all, what can be more "American" than the idea of granting equality to a formerly persecuted group that has done nothing untoward other than being different in its sexual proclivities?  Sort of like being discriminated because of the color of one's skin (even though many black leaders, jealously guarding their highly lucrative victimhood, take strong exception to equating gay liberation with the civil rights struggle).  So recognition of gay unions as legitimate marriages seems to be an eminently innocuous idea.  But appearances can be deceptive.  Few things are more destructive than gay marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society -- the institution of marriage.

Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage.  Even in places where homosexuality was viewed as normal, openly practiced, and even encouraged (as in Sparta, where carnal relationship was regarded as forging an extra bond between warriors), marriage was sacrosanct and never called into question.  Marriage has always been universally understood as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the species.  Indeed, humans took their cue from wild nature, where heterosexual family is virtually the sole organizing principle of life.

The rare exceptions only prove the rule, as do stable childless marriages held together by considerations of economic necessity or social convenience.  Indeed, so central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any society.  The many forms of social organization are but permutations of the basic familial pattern; the clan, the tribe and the state are merely an extended family writ large.

Don't believe revolutionaries when they hold forth about their intention of building paradise on earth.  Actually, they would be unable to build anything even if they wanted to.  Their talk about the bright future is mere lip service, because in reality, any revolution is exclusively about destruction, with very little thought given to what will happen afterward ("we'll cross that bridge when we come to it").  But how do you go about destroying society?  Where do you direct the blow so it will do the most damage?  In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.

True to the teachings of their prophet, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities.  Social upheavals have always opened the floodgates of debauchery and pornography.  The socialist revolution brings about a breakdown of social conventions, with "sexual liberation" regarded as part of the overall drive for freedom.  But while the rabble yearns to throw off the yoke of moral strictures to give vent to its animal passions, the revolutionary leaders see moral decay as a means of undermining the bulwark of the social structure -- the family.

Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task.  Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy.  They know not what they are doing.  But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America.  Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction.

There's still more at the link.

And see Paul Kengor, at American Thinker, "Obama and the Marxist/Communist View of Marriage and Abortion."

Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age

You know, it should come as no surprise, but it's still amazing to see how progressives turn every single domestic policy issue into a class war. Take the case of Adele Stan at the Washington Monthy, "Medicare Eligibility Age on the Table?" Life expectancy continues to rise, but according to Stan, longer life is only afforded to the 1 percent, or thereabouts:

Raise the eligibility age and PEOPLE WILL DIE.

No, that’s not an exaggeration, and the failure of certain wonks to take that into consideration speaks to their isolation from everyday people, even the everyday people who provide services to them, such as grocery-store clerks, waitresses, and construction workers in right-to-work states. These are people who cannot wait until they’re 67 for the full complement of Medicare benefits. Many of them are people who will wind up paying the individual mandate penalty in Obamacare, because even if purchased through an exchange, the monthly premium will be more than they can afford.

Not to mention the added health risks of doing physical labor into one’s golden years. Many of these people are lucky to make it to 65. As my AlterNet colleague Lynn Parramore notes, “longevity gains have gone mostly to high earners.”

Oooga boooga aaaahhhh!!! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!

These people are so stupid I'm about to roll over laughing.

The elderly are the most pampered demographic constituency in history. There's a smorgasbord of social welfare programs for old people, which is why the old-age poverty rate is the lowest among all age groups, at 8.7 percent for those 65 and older in 2011. But if you're progressive, you can find any kind of perceived disparity, even among the most privileged group in the electorate, and make the case for further expanding government (and for continuing the national bankruptcy, and thus harming future generations). The Wall Street Journal had a symposium on this in September, "Should the Eligibility Age for Medicare Be Raised?" And from Maya MacGuineas:

Raising the Medicare eligibility age is partly just a reflection of the new reality. When people first began receiving Medicare benefits in 1966, the average 65-year-old old lived another 15 years; today that figure is 20 years. It's little wonder that Medicare costs have grown 14-fold, in real terms, since 1970.

One option would be to gradually increase the Medicare age to 67 from 65, as we are already doing with Social Security. If such a policy were phased in between 2014 and 2027, we estimate it would save the federal government almost $150 billion through 2022 (net of new spending to help seniors get coverage from other sources) and reduce long-term Medicare spending by 5% (net of costs related to the Affordable Care Act's new health-care exchanges). Indexing the Medicare eligibility age to longevity—in other words, allowing it to increase beyond 67 as life expectancy rises—would save the federal government even more.

Importantly, these savings would come without substantially increasing the rolls of the uninsured or hurting the most vulnerable. According to estimates from the nonpartisan CBO, 95% of those who would otherwise have been covered by Medicare will instead obtain coverage from employers, the ACA's Medicaid expansion or the health-insurance exchanges scheduled to be up and running in 2014. Many seniors making up to 400% of the poverty line would get direct government subsidies for this new coverage; those who earn more would still benefit from rules that will ban insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions and age.

And the low-income seniors we worry about most may even end up paying less overall than if they had gone on Medicare at the age of 65. According to a 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation study—which actually opposed raising the age—nearly one-third of those age 65 to 67 (and 60% of those without employer coverage) would see their out-of-pocket costs fall. Even those making up to 300% of the poverty line, about $70,000 per year for a family of four in 2014, would see a small reduction.

In addition to better targeting Medicare dollars, this plan would encourage those who can to work a bit longer. Many individuals time their retirement based on the Medicare age; by working a little longer, they would be able to save more, provide more tax revenue to the government and increase the overall size of the economy.

Not everyone would be able to work longer—and those who couldn't would be protected by Medicaid and the new health-care exchanges. But for an aging society, the best way to maintain vibrant growth is to work longer as we live longer.

See, idiot progressives, that's not so hard is it? And not that bad either.

But by the looks of the progressive angst at Memeorandum, this is practically the end of the world. Horrible, just horrible predations on the elderly!! Aaahhahh!!!

Here's poor old Libby Spencer, for example, and I do mean poor and old:

Our well fed, financially secure, very important pundits seem to be unaware, or perhaps they've simply forgotten, that there are millions of long term unemployed out there. I'm willing to bet a majority of them are between the ages of 50 and 65 years old. If anything we should be lowering the age limit to keep these people out of emergency rooms and prevent expensive medical crises that could be avoided with proper preventative care.

Meanwhile, there are some purportedly liberal contrarians of the very important pundit class who are asking what's the big deal about raising the age limit? They're finding "great" reasons to accept what would be a gross betrayal of the voters trust. They didn't re-elect Obama and give the Dems some gains to be sold out in lame duck negotiations. Which of course spawned the traditional December internet fights. If you like watching these unfold, you can probably catch up on the tick tock here.

Oh god, Libby, STFU you stupid old hag. Is that an autobiographical rant or what? Why don't you get a freakin' job and buy some insurance, you leech? It's not like moochers like you aren't covered. Hello, that's why the socialist Obama administration passed the PPACA --- to make sure everyone has health insurance.

Wake the f-k up people. Last I checked, there's still a thing called personal responsibility. Get some bloody health insurance and if you can't, pony up the few hundred dollars for the mandate tax and check into a Medicaid clinic. No one will be dying because of higher age eligibility requirements. God, what freakin' entitlement whiners. Jazz Shaw has more snarky smackdown of these dependency tools, "Oh no, Dems might not get everything they want":

The nation stands at the precipice of a tragedy. Progressive icon Paul Krugman fears that a horrifying vision of the future may come to pass. In this nightmare scenario – and I’d like you all to take a seat and quaff some sedatives here – Barack Obama may sell the liberal agenda down the river and not get everything on the Unicorn Wish List.

For sure.

It's welfare state Armageddon. We're doomed.

New SIOA Ads Going Up December 17th

Pamela reports on the latest dhimmi backlash, "NY OBSERVER: QURAN ADS DEBUT IN NY 'PAMELA GELLER IS AT IT AGAIN'." The ads will run with a disclaimer, as noted at the Observer (via Memeorandum):

The MTA’s new disclaimer policy came in September of this year following an incident in which protestor Mona Eltahawy, 45, was filmed spray-painting another AFDI advertisement, which equated Muslims with savages.

The ad stated: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It added, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” in between two Stars of David.

Ms. Eltahawy was arrested, and every single advertisement in the series was defaced by the end of the day—a fact that did not go unnoticed. The MTA addressed the issue of salacious advertising at its monthly board meeting. The MTA had previously tried to amend its advertising guidelines so it could refuse “demeaning” ads, a rule that would prohibit “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation,” but that modification was deemed unconstitutional. With its hands tied, it opted to include a disclaimer on ads that expressed a particular viewpoint on “political, religious or moral issues or related matters.”

“A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages,” the MTA’s statement at the time read. “The answer to distasteful and uncivil speech is more, and more civilized, speech.”

Following the September incident, Ms. Geller has been busy crafting new advertisements for her campaign beginning December 17. The new ads will be plastered across at least 50 different locations, the MTA confirmed, the result of an ad buy worth more than $10,000.

“I refuse to abridge my free speech so as to appease savages,” Ms. Geller told The Observer. “Thousands of anti-Israel ads have run across the city and not one has been defaced. My ads, 10 went up in New York City, and they were destroyed in hours. You don’t agree with me, fine, run an ad. I have no problem with other people’s ideas.”

She is prepared, however, for the people who disagree with her to take out their frustration on her ads. This time around, she printed twice as many.

That's quite the comment section Pamela's got going over there. I just find it too perfect that we've got all this controversy over a simple message like Pamela's, but when anti-Israel ads run, there's never a problem. One more anecdotal piece of evidence on the left's free speech jihad. Indeed, "The Animal" attacks Pamela as an "extremist," then exhorts its readers, "you know what to do." That is progressivism for you, perfectly.

America Will Find Out How a Termed Out Socialist Will Govern

Cartoon via the Looking Spoon.

And Daniel Henninger suggest we won't be waiting long, "Obama's Ruinous Course":

A wise judge once wrote in dissent that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Let us now extend that wisdom to presidential elections.

Barack Obama says his election victory is a mandate to pursue the policy course he's insisting on in negotiations with Republicans on the fiscal cliff. He wants a tax increase of $1.6 trillion, $50 billion of new and immediate stimulus spending and the end of congressional approval to raise the ceiling on U.S. debt—the debt that a ratings agency downgraded in 2011.

The campaign stump speech in which Mr. Obama demanded that Congress cede him control over the debt ceiling slips my mind. But we all recall his repeated cries for increasing taxes on "the wealthiest" ($200,000 individual/$250,000 joint), so arguably he has a claim to that. Consequences do come with the democratic habit of holding elections.

But if that is true, then Republicans are justified in citing the consequences of the message of the midterm election held a mere two years ago. In 2010, the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives. Less noted but as important in measuring the nation's desires, that election gave the GOP control of the largest number of state legislatures it had held since 1928. A similar surge occurred for Republican governors.

Last time I looked, the progressive movement still hadn't turned Washington, D.C., into the only political jurisdiction of consequence in the United States. The message of the 2010 election, for Republicans anyway, was unambiguous: Slow down the runaway public-spending train, the spending train that caused the nation's voters to torch and punish Republicans in the 2006 midterms.

On the available evidence, a Republican who forgets those recent elections is headed for retirement. So naturally Barack Obama wants John Boehner and the Republicans in control of the House to forget those elections.

Bear in mind as we spend the holidays on this precipice, that the "fiscal cliff" wasn't born yesterday. It crawled out of its crypt in late 2011, after the Republican leadership and Mr. Obama—the deficit-reduction "super committee"—failed to negotiate essentially the same deal they are failing to get done now.

The inability of this Congress and this president to compromise on anything, now or at any time in the past four years, is itself a problem worthy of some thought.

Here's one thought: The main reason there isn't, and may never be, a solution on the fiscal cliff is that Barack Obama doesn't know how to do a political compromise. Where in his career did Barack Obama ever learn the art of the political deal? Nowhere.

Well, there you go. It's going to a long quadrennial.

More at that top link.

Progressives suck, especially our Dear Progressive Leader Barack Hussein. All hail!

The Left's War on the Koch Brothers

I wrote on the Michigan union reforms earlier and didn't think too much of it at the time. But progressives are both shocked and angry that Republicans had the f-king temerity to give workers a choice about workplace representation. Gosh, that's horrible, horrible! Michael "Capitalism is Evil" Moore went so far as calling for a "revolt":

Still enraged by actions of Republican shock troops in the lame duck MI legislature yesterday. Revolt, anyone? shar.es/6EXO8
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) December 7, 2012

Some less generalized rage has also been spewed at the Koch brothers, for example, from John Nichols at the Nation, "GOP, Koch Brothers Sneak Attack Guts Labor Rights in Michigan."

And see William Jacobson's piece as well, "Koch not backing down, and neither should you."

Some Lovely Saturday Rule 5

Via Theo Spark.

And from Doug Ross, a rare Rule 5 entry, "HEY, I'M DOWN WITH JUSTICE GINSBURG'S IDEA: We do need an all-female Supreme Court!"

One Million Moms Mad at Ellen DeGeneres

It's not the first time the group's gone after J.C. Penney for hiring the lesbian comedienne.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Ellen DeGeneres commercial for J. C. Penney angers Christian group."

Supreme Court Sets Stage for Historic Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

David Savage's analysis, at the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court to rule on Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court set the stage Friday for a historic decision on gay rights, announcing it would hear appeals of rulings striking down California's Proposition 8 and the federal law denying benefits for legally married same-sex couples.

The court could decide in the Proposition 8 case whether the Constitution's promise of equal treatment gives gays and lesbians a right to marry. But the justices also left themselves the option to rule narrowly or even to duck a decision.

In 2008, California voters approved the measure limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the proposition had illegally taken away a right to marry that gays had won in the state courts.

This 9th Circuit decision, though limited to California, was the first by federal judges to reject a state's marriage law.

Ted Olson and David Boies, two nationally prominent attorneys who launched the legal attack on Proposition 8, served notice they would seek a broad ruling national in scope at a time when public opinion has turned in favor of gay marriage rights.

"We are going to address all the issues, focused on the fundamental constitutional right to marry of all citizens," Olson said Friday.

"We ought to have marriage equality as a constitutional right everywhere," Boies added.

They maintained they were not concerned that the decision to hear the case puts in jeopardy their court victory for California gays who wish to marry. If the justices had simply turned down the appeal, gay marriage would have once again been legal in the state.

John Eastman, a California law professor and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports traditional marriage, saw the court's announcement as a sign that Proposition 8 would be upheld. If so, gay marriage would remain illegal in California, barring another voter initiative.

"It's a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco. We believe the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this exercise in judicial activism," said Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

I don't know. I'm skeptical about that, as I noted earlier.

But continue reading in any case.

ObamaCare Slams Wisconsin Small Businesses

These interviews with businessmen are very revealing. Remember Sam Facchini's interview the other night? Well, more on his concerns coming out of Wisconsin, at the clip.

I was fairly skeptical reading Rivkin and Casey's case for new ObamaCare challenges at the Supreme Court. But one way or another something's going to happen. Perhaps the GOP's fortunes will change by 2016, winning the White House and the Senate, and Republicans will consider changing the law, or even replacing it. Something's going to happen, though, either way. The law's so messed up on so many levels, and so viciously unfair to those not well-enough connected to score a waiver. The small businesses are just getting hammered. It's completely un-American, but then, progressivism is un-American, so there you go.

Some Homo-Rights Activists Worry Supreme Court Could Set Movement Back in Time

Well, let's hope so.

In the case of Prop. 8 at least, the only reason there's a Supreme Court review is progressive thuggery and far-left judicial activism. It's not because of some kind of groundswell. Things are out of hand.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 8:Some gay rights activists nervous about Supreme Court review":

With the U.S. Supreme Court announcing it would rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates settled in for at least a few more months in limbo.

By agreeing to review Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the justices could hand activists a historic victory and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. But gay rights advocates are also well aware that the court could rule against them and set the movement back at a time when same-sex marriage has seen a series of election victories at the state level.

"I think it's the critical issue for gay and lesbian Americans today. It's the issue that signals full equality and respect. Not just acceptance -- respect," said Tom Watson, the board chair of Love Honor Cherish, a group that has advocated for a ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8.

"The case goes directly to the scope of civil rights in this country, whether they're extended to everybody or defined very narrowly," Watson said.

Watson, a Los Angeles attorney, said he expected the justices to take the case, though it was tough to predict how the conservative-leaning court might rule. He noted that the court asked the parties to address whether supporters of Proposition 8 have standing, or the right to defend the measure. Normally, state officials would defend a state law being scrutinized by the Supreme Court, but California's leaders have declined to do so.

If the court found that Proposition 8 supporters do not have standing, the justices would not have to rule on the merits of the case. Under those circumstances, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the measure is unconstitutional would stand and same-sex marriages could resume in California.

"It would be winning on a technicality," Watson said.

Because of the uncertainty, Watson said his group would continue to consider pushing forward with a 2014 ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8. Either way, he said, California's gay and lesbian couples are in for a frustrating wait.

"We have kids growing up with parents that don't have the legal protections that marriage gives," Watson said. "And, let's face it, people die."

More here: "Gay couples in California excited, but worried, by court's action."

PREVIOUSLY: "Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage."

'Count Bubba' Provides High-Powered Intellectual Riposte at the Comments

I have no idea who this "Count Bubba" is, but it sure looks like the blogging around here has hit a nerve:

"Progressives suck"

Awwww... waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waah, waaaaahhh!

Grow up you fucking loser. Or better yet... post some pictures of tanks and explosions to go along with your "AMERICAN POWERRRRRR 5000!!!1!" 14-year-old mentaility. Something to go along with all the girlie pics. Girls that would never get with a loser man-child like you.

Dork. Go stuff yourself in a closet.

Gotta love it. A "loser-man child."

I guess it's grown up to be all about $1.6 trillion in tax increases, but Big Bubba's not too keen on actually addressing the key issues at the post. So yeah, progressives suck, and how.

And Bubba, it takes a real loser like yourself to know one. I'd be more more than pleased to stuff you in a closet, so step up your game, bro. Make it personal, up close and personal, you butt-licking coward. You're real tough hanging out behind a computer screen, like a stupid unkempt troll. Fuck you, asshole.

Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Supreme Court to Hear Gay-Marriage Cases." (Via Memeorandum.)

Folks can read it all at the links, although I'm not so sure about this part from the article:

Opponents of gay marriage said the Supreme Court's decision would be a chance to put the brakes on lower courts.

"It's the ideological blinders of judges at this point. There is immense cultural pressure to favor same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaking before Friday's announcement.

The organization's chairman, John Eastman, said Friday after the announcement that the high court's decision to accept the California case was "a strong signal that the court will reverse the lower courts." He said "voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect."

Nah.

The Court has plenty of precedent for striking down Proposition 8. In Romer v. Evans (1996) the Court stuck down Colorado's Amendment 2, passed in 1992, which would have basically excluded homosexuals from special designations as discriminated groups in state and local equal protection laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's still on the Court, wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens, both now retired, as well Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both still on the bench.

We can expect going forward that Kennedy will favor extending equal rights protections for homosexual marriage --- he also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law --- and he will certainly be joined in a new majority that includes Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, along with Breyer and Ginsburg from the earlier cases.

Homosexual rights groups have enjoyed a string of recent victories and so perhaps history is indeed on their side. I don't think the will of the voters of California should be swept away by a radical cultural extremist majority on the Court, but I expect it to happen, frankly. Anthony Kennedy's basically a progressive on a number of these issues (don't get me going about capital punishment), so folks shouldn't be surprised if the once Golden State's voters get thrown under the bus.

More on this later...

We've Got al Qaeda on the Run Alright ... In Africa, Stronger Than Ever!

Oh yes, al Qaeda has been decimated, war is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery!

All hail Dear Leader Barack Hussein!

At the Wall Street Journal, "Terror Fight Shifts to Africa: U.S. Considers Seeking Congressional Backing for Operations Against Extremists":

WASHINGTON—Military counterterrorism officials are seeking more capability to pursue extremist groups in Africa and elsewhere that they believe threaten the U.S., and the Obama administration is considering asking Congress to approve expanded authority to do it.

The move, according to administration and congressional officials, would be aimed at allowing U.S. military operations in Mali, Nigeria, Libya and possibly other countries where militants have loose or nonexistent ties to al Qaeda's Pakistan headquarters. Depending on the request, congressional authorization could cover the use of armed drones and special operations teams across a region larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the officials said.

The idea comes as the U.S. prepares by 2014 to draw down its remaining forces in Afghanistan, which were authorized by Congress in response to the country serving as base for the al Qaeda plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That authorization has since been applied to pursuing al Qaeda-linked groups as far as Somalia and Yemen, but the threat posed by militants has widened to include other areas and other alliances.

The discussion about seeking new authority underscores the growing U.S. alarm over Islamic extremists in North Africa, where an al Qaeda offshoot has seized control of territory following a coup in Mali to provide the group and its offshoots a working base for operations. The U.S. administration has called the Mali situation a "powder keg" that could destabilize surrounding countries and imperil Western interests.

"The conditions today are vastly different than they were previously," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa command, said in an interview. "There are now non-al Qaeda-associated groups that present significant threats to the United States." He called the debate over new authorization a "worthy discussion."hreats to the United States." He called the debate over new authorization a "worthy discussion."

Really?

But I thought al Qaeda was "on the run"? "Decimated"? Dear Leader promised us: "Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack."

Well, it's okay if President Hussein lies on occasion. The great left-forces needed Obama's reelection to complete our fundamental transformation of America. It's all about trade offs, and I trust Brother Barack to do his progressive best to keep pushing for the withering away of the state and the full achievement of communism. Honesty and integrity are bourgeois notions, hopelessly inadequate for the challenges of today's day and age. Besides, the reactionary forces of conservatism and tradition are too stupid to even handle the truth. And, added bonus, if terrorism's really still a problem Dear Leader can claim continued exigencies for his unprecedented expansion of the kill list citizens' elimination program.

It's all working out as planned!

More from Walter Russell Mead, "The War on Terror We Aren’t Fighting Shifts to Africa."

GOP Limits Union Power in Michigan

At the Cleveland Plain Dealer, "Right-to-work legislation in Michigan puts labor unions on the defensive: A Closer Look."

More at The Lede, "Protesters Arrested Before Vote on Michigan Union Law." And at Memeorandum.

Australian DJs Cowering Ignominiously After Kate Hospital Nurse Commits Suicide

Following up this report, "Jacintha Saldanha, Nurse Who Took Telephone Call in Kate Hospital Prank, Commits Suicide."

Here's more from TMZ:

Australian DJs in Kate Middleton Prank -- Ducking for Cover tmz.me/VPsWHM
— TMZ (@TMZ) December 7, 2012

Update: More from TMZ, "Australian DJs -- We're Yanking Ourselves Off the Air Due to Suicide."

Well, let's hope that's a permanent suspension.

Obama's Fiscal Cliff: It's Nothing But a Power Play

From Charles Krauthammer, at the Washington Post":

Let’s understand President Obama’s strategy in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. It has nothing to do with economics or real fiscal reform. This is entirely about politics. It’s Phase 2 of the 2012 campaign. The election returned him to office. The fiscal cliff negotiations are designed to break the Republican opposition and grant him political supremacy, something he thinks he earned with his landslide 2.8-point victory margin on Election Day.

This is why he sent Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to the Republicans to convey not a negotiating offer but a demand for unconditional surrender. House Speaker John Boehner had made a peace offering of $800 billion in new revenue. Geithner pocketed Boehner’s $800 billion, doubled it to $1.6 trillion, offered risible cuts that in 2013 would actually be exceeded by new stimulus spending and then demanded that Congress turn over to the president all power over the debt ceiling.

Boehner was stunned. Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. In nobler days, they’d have offered Geithner a pistol and an early-morning appointment at Weehawken. Alas, Boehner gave again, coming back a week later with spending-cut suggestions — as demanded by Geithner — only to have them dismissed with a wave of the hand.

What’s going on here? Having taken Boehner’s sword, and then his shirt, Obama sent Geithner to demand Boehner’s trousers. Perhaps this is what Obama means by a balanced approach.

More at that top link.

Social Security Will Boost Debt by 18 Percent of GDP in Just Twenty Years

At IBD, "Social Security to Up Debt By 18% of GDP In 20 Years":

Since 2007, Social Security has gone from running an $81 billion annual cash surplus to an estimated $58 billion deficit.

Yet despite that $139 billion swing toward red ink, Democrats insist that Social Security hasn't added a penny to the deficit and, therefore, should be off the table in fiscal cliff negotiations.

In reality, Social Security's deteriorating finances explain 15% of the $900 billion-plus increase in the overall budget deficit over the past five years.

Even more striking, Social Security's cash deficit will balloon to $155 billion by 2022, the Congressional Budget Office projects. That rise amounts to more than one-third of the overall deficit increase over the coming decade if current tax and spending policies stay in place.

IOU Accounting

So how can liberals argue that Social Security doesn't cause deficits? The $2.7 trillion Social Security trust fund doesn't hold any resources to help the government afford benefits. Instead, it represents a Treasury promise to cover any cash shortfall until the trust fund's special bonds, really government IOUs, are all spent.

That makes the retirement program's cash shortfall a problem for Treasury, but not Social Security itself, liberals can argue.

Yet either way, the impact on the government's bottom line is the same.

On its current path, Social Security's cash shortfall would raise public debt by 18% of GDP through 2032 — just before the trust fund is exhausted — an IBD analysis based on the 2012 Social Security Trustees report finds.

In 20 years, if Social Security is left unreformed, its cash deficit will hit 1.4% of GDP. On top of that, the extra interest due on the debt incurred by redeeming all of Social Security's trust fund bonds would amount to another 1% of GDP.

Bottom line: Social Security alone would increase the deficit by 2.4% of GDP, making it too big to ignore.

Because health care is by far the biggest driver of long-term budget deficits, there's no reason to think that the non-Social Security part of the budget will have money to spare to cover such a big Social Security deficit.

There also are important reasons to reform Social Security beyond fiscal prudence. When President Clinton put Social Security at the top of his agenda in 1998, he told Congress that reform wasn't just about saving money but also providing more support to lift low lifetime earners and elderly widows out of poverty. Such efforts have been stymied by political stalemate.

How about adults at the halfway point of their careers who face the prospect of retiring after the Social Security trust fund is depleted?

An IBD analysis finds that an average earner (about $43,000 a year) with 20 years left until retirement would have to set aside more than 5% of wages each year to make up for a nearly 25% automatic benefit cut under current law. That assumes Treasury returns and a lifetime annuity.

The government should let these workers know if they need to do more saving before it's too late.

RTWT.

Fiscal Cliff Is No Accident — It's The Left's Agenda

From George Will, at IBD, "Fiscal Cliff is the Left's Policy Dream":

Even Jonathan Swift, who said promises and pie crusts are made to be broken, might have marveled at the limited shelf life of Barack Obama's promise of a "balanced" deficit-reduction plan — substantial spending cuts to accompany revenue increases.

Obama made short shrift of that promise when he demanded $1.6 trillion in immediate tax increases and mostly unspecified domestic cuts.

He also promised to cut $800 billion from 10 years of war spending that will end in two years, which is like "cutting" $800 billion by deciding not to build a ski resort on Mars.

Year after year, the Democratic-controlled Senate, ignoring the law, refuses to pass budgets.

Year after year, Washington makes big government cheap by charging Americans only $6 for every $10 of government services, borrowing the difference. And the biggest purchaser of U.S. government debt is not China but ... the U.S. government, largely through the Federal Reserve.

Yet what supposedly is horrifying is a sequester that would cut less than 3% of federal spending over the next decade? Or horrible Grover Norquist.

Although a surfeit of numbers are being bandied, a pertinent one is missing — the number of legislators who have pledged to Norquist not to raise taxes. The number is: Zero.

All pledges have been to voters. Progressives lament the public's distrust of the political class, while urging many members of it to treat their promises as pie crusts.

Given progressives' "principled" refusal to countenance entitlement reforms, the principal drivers of the fiscal imbalance will not be untouched even by raising, from 65, the age of Medicare eligibility.

RTWT.

Progressives suck.

Britney Spears in Tight Leather Dress at X-Factor Viewing Party

Love the leather.

At London's Daily Mail, "Britney Spears shows cleavage in tight leather dress at X Factor viewing party... but Khloe Kardashian's retro glamour steals the show."

Jacintha Saldanha, Nurse Who Took Telephone Call in Kate Hospital Prank, Commits Suicide

What a waste.

She was a mother of two. I can't imagine how much pain she was in after the incident, which was a evil act committed by worthless people.

At Fox News, "Royal prank call nurse commits suicide."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Kate and William 'deeply saddened' to hear 'excellent' nurse who put through Australian DJs' hoax call has been found dead in suspected suicide."

The Immoral Obscenity of the American Welfare State

An intense talking points memo at Bill O'Reilly's.

Black Bloc Anarchists

From Lee Stranahan, at Big Government, "VIDEO PROMOTING BLACK BLOC ANARCHISTS PROVES 'OCCUPY UNMASKED' GOT IT RIGHT":

This is the real Occupy: anti-capitialist and with an appetite for destruction. The leftist critics weren't outraged because Occupy Unmasked got the story wrong. They were panicked that the film got it exactly right.

Egypt Sees Largest Clash Since Revolution

At WSJ:

CAIRO—Tens of thousands of supporters and opponents of Egypt's president clashed Wednesday, hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails and brawling in Cairo's streets, in the largest violent battle between Islamists and their foes since the country's revolution early last year.

The confrontation started in the evening after Islamist protesters marching in support of President Mohammed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, moved to break up a demonstration by the president's non-Islamist opponents outside the presidential palace in Cairo, where Mr. Morsi has his offices.

Supporters of the rival camps, spurred by public defiance by influential figures on each side, waged back-and-forth battles in side streets outside the palace walls as night fell, shutting down major thoroughfares. Around midnight, police formed a barrier between the camps, with thousands of demonstrators on each side, as gunshots rang out and each side accused the other of firing live rounds.

Those allegations couldn't be confirmed. The Muslim Brotherhood said at least one of its supporters had been killed, while opposition officials said two of their supporters had died. An early Thursday report by state television quoted the Health Ministry as saying five people were killed and 446 people were injured, according to the Associated Press.

The Obama administration exhorted the sides to respect each other and refrain from bloodshed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Brussels, called for a two-way dialogue. She also expressed dismay at the constitutional process, saying Egyptians "deserve a constitutional process that is open, transparent and fair and does not unduly favor one group over any other."

Also in Cairo, crowds besieged the Brotherhood headquarters in the al Moqatam neighborhood, ONTV said. Protesters also burned down a Brotherhood headquarters in the Suez Canal town of Ismailiya, Egyptian media reported.

The conflict between Islamists and their opponents has been behind some of the Middle East's bloodiest civil wars. Those who battled in the shadow of Cairo's presidential palace mirrored Egypt's secular-Islamist divide—with a crowd of mixed-gender and mainly young Egyptians, many in tight jeans and hipster haircuts, facing off against men in conservative dress shirts or robes and skullcaps.

Egypt's opposition was galvanized last month when Mr. Morsi issued a decree granting him nearly unrestricted powers and placing him above the judiciary. The decree paved the way for hurried approval of a constitution that was drafted by an Islamist-dominated body that the opposition says was working illegitimately and produced a charter weighted with Islamic law. The government has set a referendum on the draft for Dec. 15.

Anti-Morsi Egyptians took to the streets. On Tuesday, they marched on the presidential palace to denounce Mr. Morsi, the first time in recent memory that protesters made it to the palace walls. On Wednesday, Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Eryan, speaking on al-Jazeera, called on millions of Egyptians to go to the presidential palace to "defend the state and its legitimacy."

And see Telegraph UK, "Hundreds call on President Morsi to step down." And Instapundit, "JUST LIKE OBAMA AND THE “FISCAL CLIFF:” CBS News: Egypt’s president offers nothing to defuse crisis."

The Opening for a Fresh ObamaCare Challenge

From Rivkin and Casey, at the Wall Street Journal:

The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis. This effect fundamentally undercuts Congress's original purpose, which was to expand health-care coverage to the greatest number of people, not to improve federal revenues.

Similarly, having reviewed the likely costs and benefits, states are now taking advantage of the court-granted flexibility. Seven states, including Texas, Mississippi and Georgia, have so far opted out of the Medicaid-expansion provisions, and eight (with more certain to come) are refusing to create the insurance exchanges, leaving this to a federal bureaucracy unequipped to handle these new administrative burdens. As a result, a growing number of low-income Americans will be unable to obtain the free or cost-effective insurance that Congress originally meant them to have, although they remain subject to the mandate-tax.

Policy problems aside, by transforming the mandate into a tax to avoid one set of constitutional problems (Congress having exceeded its constitutionally enumerated powers), the court has created another problem. If the mandate is an indirect tax, as the Supreme Court held, then the Constitution's "Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax to "be uniform throughout the United States." The Framers adopted this provision so that a group of dominant states could not shift the federal tax burden to the others. It was yet another constitutional device that was simultaneously designed to protect federalism and safeguard individual liberty.

The Supreme Court has rarely considered the Uniformity Clause's reach, but it cannot be ignored. The court also refused to impose meaningful limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce for decades after the 1930s, until justices began to re-establish the constitutional balance in the 1990s with decisions leading up to the ObamaCare ruling this summer. And although the court has upheld as "uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this standard.

ObamaCare provides that low-income taxpayers, who are nevertheless above the federal poverty line, can discharge their mandate-tax obligation by enrolling in the new, expanded Medicaid program, which serves as the functional equivalent of a tax credit. But that program will not now exist in every state because, as a matter of federal law, states can opt out. The actual tax burden will not be geographically uniform as the court's precedents require.

Thus, having transformed the individual mandate into a tax, the court may face renewed challenges to ObamaCare on uniformity grounds...

RTWT.

Actually, I think the Court will be faced with religious conscience violations before any new Art. I challenges come before it, but this is an interesting piece either way. The PPACA is a motherf-king abomination and should be consigned to the scrap-heap of history, sooner rather than later.

We'll see. Meanwhile, check the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

Dancing Around Genocide

From David Feith, at the Wall Street Journal:

Is promoting genocide a human-rights violation? You might think that's an easy question. But it isn't at Human Rights Watch, where a bitter debate is raging over how to describe Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel. The infighting reveals a peculiar standard regarding dictatorships and human rights and especially the Jewish state.

Human Rights Watch is the George Soros-funded operation that has outsize influence in governments, newsrooms and classrooms world-wide. Some at the nonprofit want to denounce Iran's regime for inciting genocide. "Sitting still while Iran claims a 'justification to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel' . . . is a position unworthy of our great organization," Sid Sheinberg, the group's vice chairman, wrote to colleagues in a recent email.

But Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who runs the nonprofit, strenuously disagrees.

Asked in 2010 about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel "must be wiped off the map," Mr. Roth suggested that the Iranian president has been misunderstood. "There was a real question as to whether he actually said that," Mr. Roth told The New Republic, because the Persian language lacks an idiom for wiping off the map. Then again, Mr. Ahmadinejad's own English-language website translated his words that way, and the main alternative translation—"eliminated from the pages of history"—is no more benign. Nor is Mr. Ahmadinejad an outlier in the regime. Iran's top military officer declared earlier this year that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

Mr. Roth's main claim is legalistic: Iran's rhetoric doesn't qualify as "incitement"—which is illegal under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948—but amounts merely to "advocacy," which is legal.

"The theory" to which Human Rights Watch subscribes, he has written in internal emails, "is that in the case of advocacy, however hateful, there is time to dissuade—to rebut speech with speech—whereas in the case of incitement, the action being urged is so imminently connected to the speech in question that there is no time to dissuade. Incitement must be suppressed because it is tantamount to action."

Mr. Roth added in another email: "Many of [Iran's] statements are certainly reprehensible, but they are not incitement to genocide. No one has acted on them."

A ghoulish imitation of human being, that Kenneth Roth. But continue reading.

And human rights? Not if you're Jewish according to the left's human rights policeman. Just watch your back, Jewish or not. Progressives have their knives out.

'Although it's always crowded ... You still can find some room...'

From yesterday's drive-time at The Sound L.A.

They go way back sometimes, to 1956:

9:51am: Bang A Gong - T. Rex

9:38am: Ain`t Even Done With That - John Cougar Mellencamp

9:34am: Heartbreak Hotel - Elvis Presley

9:29am: Feel Like Makin' Love - Bad Company

9:24am: Magic Man - Heart

9:22am: Immigrant Song - Led Zeppelin

9:15am: You Really Got Me - The Kinks

Dems Ready to Push Americans Over Fiscal Cliff

At Business Week, "Geithner Says No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the Obama administration “absolutely” is willing to go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans don’t agree to raise tax rates on the highest-income earners.

“There’s no prospect to an agreement that doesn’t involve those rates going up on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest,” Geithner said in an interview on CNBC today.

Dick.

RELATED: At Hot Air, "Tapper to Carney: Back to “hostage” again, eh, champ?", and at Twitchy, "New tone: DCCC launches site branding GOP ‘hostage takers’."

Democrat dicks.

The Blue-State Suicide Pact

From Joel Kotkin, at New Geography:

With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax “fairness” represents a kind of  bizarre economic suicide pact.

Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions.

Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains,   taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.

The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on “the rich” are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like. Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day “kulaks,” the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.

William Jacobson's getting a kick out of the kulak analogy: "Go kulak — more of nothing is nothing." (And be sure to follow the links there.)

But back to Kotkin's piece:

What would a big tax increase on the “rich” mean to the poor and working classes in these areas [big metro areas that supported Obama]? To be sure, they may gain via taxpayer-funded transfer payments, but it’s doubtful that higher taxes will make their prospects for escaping poverty much brighter. For the most part, the economies of the key blue regions are very dependent on the earnings of the mass affluent class, and their spending is critical to overall growth. Singling out the affluent may also reduce the discretionary spending that drives employment in the personal services sector, retail and in such key fields as construction.

This prospect is troubling since many of these areas are already among the most unequal in America. In the expensive blue areas, the lower-income middle class population that would benefit from the Administration’s plan of keeping the Bush rates for them is proportionally smaller, although the numbers of the poor, who already pay little or nothing in income taxes, generally greater. Indeed, according to a recent Census analysis, the two places with the highest proportions of poor people are Washington, D.C., and California. By far the highest level of inequality among the country’s 25 most populous counties is in Manhattan.

Finally we have to consider the impact of the new tax rates on the fiscal health of these states. Four of the five states in the poorest shape fiscally, according to a recent survey by 24/7 Wall Street, all have congressional delegations dominated by Democrats — California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois (the one red state is Arizona). Slower economic growth brought about by higher taxes — compounded by high state taxes — is unlikely to make their situation any better.

So what can we expect to happen if the fiscal cliff appears, or if the President and his party get their taxes on the rich? One can expect a proportionally greater impact on citizens and the budgets of the already expensive, high-tax states, where the new kulak class is concentrated. It may also spark a greater migration of people and companies to less expensive, lower-tax areas...

Progressive economics is not smart.

Seriously. We're talking retardo-maximo territory here (shaking head in pitiful yet resigned astonishment).

Led Zeppelin on Letterman

Well, isn't this something else?

Bill O'Reilly Interviews NBC's Bob Costas

Erika Johnsen and Ed Morrissey have the background at Hot Air, "Bob Costas: The timing of my gun comments was a mistake, but…", and "Video: Bob Costas on gun control … in the middle of an NFL game."

We Won't Build That: States Resist ObamaCare Insurance Exchanges

At IBD, "ObamaCare: 21 States Reject Exchanges On Cost, Rules":

ObamaCare's subsidized insurance exchanges are supposed to be up and running in little more than a year, putting a key piece of the federal health care law into action.

But it's unclear that will happen, especially with a growing number of states saying they don't want the cost and regulatory headaches.

The exchanges are where consumers without employer-based coverage will shop for insurance under ObamaCare and receive a tax credit toward its purchase if they are eligible. But 21 states have expressly declined to set up their own exchanges, with nine others still undecided ahead of the Dec. 14 deadline.

Federalism in action. Gee, is that racist?

More at that top link.

Duchess of Cambridge Pregnant

At Telegraph UK, "The Duchess of Cambridge's first pregnancy will dominate the headlines just as Princess Diana's did, says Telegraph Chief Reporter Gordon Rayner."

At at the Guardian, "A story is born - papers devote pages to the royal pregnancy."

BONUS: Back over at the Telegraph, "Duchess of Cambridge pregnant: hospital security blunder as Kate's nurse falls for hoax call," and "Hospital CEO: Duchess of Cambridge hoax 'deplorable'."

And from WaPo, "Australian radio hoaxers sorry for crank call to hospital treating Duchess of Cambridge."

Black Thug Caught on Camera Stealing Donation Jar Meant for 2-Year-Old Girl Battling Cancer (VIDEO)

Remember, let's be clear about this: It's not just a thug or a thief. It's a black thug. A black thief.

At KABC 7 Los Angeles, "Donation jar stolen from girl battling cancer."

Michelle Malkin Slams Ed Asner and California Federation of Teachers

Michelle's positively indignant:

And previously, "Teachers' Union Propaganda Video Shows 'Rich People' Urinating on the 'Poor'."

'Gangnam Style' Christmas Lights

Via Theo Spark:

Cheering U.N. Palestine Vote, Synagogue Tests Its Members

At the New York Times:

Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, a large synagogue on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, is known for its charismatic rabbis, its energetic and highly musical worship, and its liberal stances on social causes.

But on Friday, when its rabbis and lay leaders sent out an e-mail enthusiastically supporting the vote by the United Nations to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state, the statement was more than even some of its famously liberal congregants could stomach.

“The vote at the U.N. yesterday is a great moment for us as citizens of the world,” said the e-mail, which was sent to all congregants. “This is an opportunity to celebrate the process that allows a nation to come forward and ask for recognition.”

The statement, at a time when the United Nations’ vote was opposed by the governments of the United States and Israel, as well as by the leadership of many American Jewish organizations, reflected a divide among American Jews and a willingness to publicly disagree with Israel.

Clergy at several Jewish congregations have, in various ways, spoken out sympathetically about the United Nations’ vote. But B’nai Jeshurun stood out because of its size and prominence, and reaction from congregants was swift. Allan Ripp, a member, said he and his wife were appalled.

“We are just sort of in a state of shock,” he said. “It’s not as if we don’t support a two-state solution, but to say with such a warm embrace — it is like a high-five to the P.L.O., and that has left us numb.”

Other congregants, however, said it was a bold move that they welcomed.

“I thought it was very courageous of them,” said Gil Kulick, a congregant. “I think as of late there has been a reluctance to speak out on this issue,” he added, “and that’s why I was really delighted that they chose to take a strong unequivocal stand.”

American Jews have long had a vigorous, and sometimes vitriolic, debate about the positions of the Israeli government and the peace process with the Palestinians. But the tendency has been to keep critical views within the fold.

“At most times we impose a kind of discipline upon ourselves — nobody imposes it on us — particularly on a matter that the Israeli government has asked for unanimous support from the Jewish community,” said Samuel Norich, the publisher of The Forward, a Jewish affairs weekly based in New York. “When they speak out, that is rare,” Mr. Norich said of mainstream congregations.

Gary Rosenblatt, the editor and publisher of The Jewish Week, the largest-circulation Jewish newspaper in the country, said, “I think the sense of a need for a unified front in the American Jewish community is breaking down.”

Well, the times they are a-changin'.

But RTWT, via Theo Spark, "USA Jews Don't Have Israel's Back..." (Actually, I think progressive Jews don't have Israel's back. Conservative Jews are at the ramparts of freedom for the West.)

Democrats Are Pathologically Unserious

Milton Wolf, at the Washington Times, "GOP should fear voters, not the ‘fiscal cliff’":

How many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before Charlie Brown finally wises up and quits playing her game?

Republicans don’t have to keep falling for the Democrats’ duplicity. The Democrats pretend the so-called “fiscal cliff” debate is about getting our financial house in order, so they propose a tax increase on people earning more than $200,000 a year (i.e., “millionaires and billionaires” in Democrat-speak), which will fund their leviathan government for all of — drumroll — four days.

These are pathologically unserious people. Their goal is not to solve the current fiscal crisis. Their goal is to use the crisis to grow government and further their statist agenda which, incidentally, created the crisis in the first place. Recall Democrat Rahm Emanuel’s unmasked moment of clarity: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Now, in hopes of enacting their panacea of tax increases, Democrats offer spending cuts that everyone knows never will happen. What’s worse, the president calls for $255 billion in more spending. Only a Democrat would claim increased spending will reduce the deficit, and only a Republican would fall for it.

The Democrats’ lust for tax increases goes far beyond simple class warfare, as atrocious as that alone is. Democrats are fully aware that the rich already are paying more than their fair share. The wealthy (top 10 percent) may earn 50 percent of the income, but they pay 70 percent of the federal taxes. If that’s not fair, what is? Eighty percent? One hundred percent?

The Democrats’ long game is to push an ever-increasing tax burden onto fewer and fewer taxpayers. This grows a class of Americans who may or may not earn paychecks but certainly become beneficiaries of government largesse while remaining blissfully detached from its enormous cost. (What’s their fair share?) Economists would call this a recipe for disaster. Democrats would call it a voting base. Weak-kneed Republicans are poised to help them build it.

Continue reading.

Runway Inspiration

From Victoria's Secret:

Last's night's show was almost a blur.

You have to watch the videos to absorb it all, things happened so fast.

New York Post Subway Death Cover Controversy

From photographer R. Umar Abbasi, "Anguished fotog: Critics are unfair to condemn me":

(Post freelance photographer R. Umar Abbasi captured the dramatic moments before Ki Suk Han was struck by a downtown Q train. A day after the pictures were published, a flurry of criticism erupted — from other media and over social media like Twitter. He recounted the or deal to The Post yesterday.)

I was on an assignment, waiting for a train at the 49th Street subway platform, when I suddenly heard people gasping.

The announcement had come over the loudspeaker that the train was coming — and out of the periphery of my eye, I saw a body flying through the air and onto the track.

I just started running. I had my camera up — it wasn’t even set to the right settings — and I just kept shooting and flashing, hoping the train driver would see something and be able to stop.

I had no idea what I was shooting. I’m not even sure it was registering with me what was happening. I was just looking at that train coming.

It all went so quickly; from the time I heard the shouting until the time the train hit the man was about 22 seconds.

At the same time, the perp was running toward me. I was afraid he might push me onto the tracks.

The victim was so far away from me, I was already too far away to reach him when I started running.

The train hit the man before I could get to him, and nobody closer tried to pull him out.

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Man Pushed to Death on Subway Tracks."

And the backlash at Mediagazer and Memeorandum.

60 Top Conservative Blogs 2012

At Right Wing News, "The 60 Best Conservative Blogs For 2012 (6th Annual)."

AmPower comes in at #38.

'Socialism' is Merriam-Webster's Top Word for 2012

A news clip from CBS News This Morning, "Merriam-Webster's top ten words of 2012."

We have a socialist president leading a morally bankrupt collectivist party that took 52 percent of the electorate last month, so it's no surprise folks are saying WTF's now blindsiding the country. Suck it up, idiot Americans. You voted for these Marxist monsters. The bills are just now starting to come due. It ain't gonna be pretty.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Teachers' Union Propaganda Video Shows 'Rich People' Urinating on the 'Poor'."

* "Marxists Seek Destruction of the Individual, the Moral Foundation of Society."

* "Socialists Outline Democrats' Agenda for Next Two Years."

* "Rachel Maddow and the Left's Depraved Agenda of Unchecked Power Over the Individual."

* "Communist Party USA Pulls Out the Stops for Democrat Class Warfare."

* "Campaign for America's Future, Top Democrat Activist Group, Launches Class-Warfare Website."

The 'Joys' of 21st Century Multicultural Tribalism

From VDH, at PJ Media, "The Confessions of a Confused Misfit."

How Washington Fools the Public About Spending 'Cuts'

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Budget Baseline Con":

If the fiscal cliff talks make Lindsay Lohan look like a productive member of society, perhaps it's because President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of "baseline budgeting."

Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is "reducing the deficit," which they suggest means making real spending choices. They are talking about a "$4 trillion plan," or something, regardless of how that number is reached.

Here's the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's "baseline" has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms...

Continue reading.

And at Gateway Pundit, "Boehner Purges Committees of Conservatives Voting on Principles."