Teacher Scolds Student for Reading Fox News Webpage

Check this out, from Rush Limbaugh: "Teacher Scolds Student for Reading Fox News Webpage":

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mitchell, 18 years old, Traverse City, Michigan. Hello, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, how are you doing?

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: I was just calling to talk to you. I'm a senior in high school and today I was on the Internet reading Fox News, and my teacher came up behind me and found out I was reading Fox News and yelled at me in front of the whole class and said I was not allowed to read Fox News in class, that I'm only allowed to read BBC and stuff of that nature.

RUSH: Wait a second. I want to get a picture here. You've got your computer on in class. You're legally allowed to have the computer on in class?

CALLER: Yes. There's a whole bunch of computers in the classroom. It's a computer classroom and I'm sitting there, and he comes up behind me and I'm reading Fox News.

RUSH: What is the class? Is it computer science? What is the class?

CALLER: It's a video production class, and I'm already done with the video I was producing, so...

RUSH: So you're reading Fox News, the teacher comes up and spots that, says, "You can't read that!" in front of the whole class?

CALLER: In front of the whole class. And then he proceeded to give me a ten-minute lecture on why I can't read Fox News.

RUSH: Summarize it in 30 seconds.

CALLER: Something like they actually know that they have, you know, conservative views they're trying to push on me and all these different things that there are speaking points that they tell their reporters to report on to get me to believe certain ways and that I can only listen to BBC and other news venues.

RUSH: Did your teacher say anything about me?

CALLER: No, but I pulled up the Rush Limbaugh page directly after that, just to tick him off some more, but he walked away because he was so mad at me before I could show him.

RUSH: Well, you must try. That's great. Now, this is fabulous. That's guts! That's courage! Tell him he can't listen to Fox, pulls up my website. Do it again with the teacher behind you. Be defiant there. Because we lie. We lie. We're "spreading propaganda." It's scary. It is really scary to find out just how ignorant and stupid so many American teachers in this country are. They're just activists. They're nothing more than activists. They're not teachers at all.

END TRANSCRIPT

Score another one for the "there's no left-wing indoctrination in the schools" proponents!

Pasadena "May Day! May Day!" Anti-Socialism Rally

Roughly 100 demonstrators turned out this afternoon in Pasadena for a "May Day! May Day" anti-socialism protest against the Barack Obama administration. Gathering at the City Hall in Pasadena's majestic civic center, the event was a follow-up to the Pasadena Patriots' Tea Party held on April 11. Former Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson gave the keynote speech. She was preceded by Big Hollywood's Andrew Breitbart.

Here's Victoria Jackson a few minutes before the first speakers took the podium:

One of the most enjoyable moments of the day was listening to "Patrick Henry" give his speech, a patriotic reenactment of Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" rallying cry from Richmond, Virginia, in 1775. This gentleman was quite talented, and his costume seemed quite authentic.

The pot of revolutionary tea boiled over bit when Andrew Breitbart took the stage. About 5 minutes into his talk, a local Barack Obama supporter, who had heard the loudspeakers from his apartment across the street, joined the crowd and began yelling at Breitbart: "Hey, he's our president," and "I came over here because I heard all this hatred." According to the Pasadena Star-News:

One man, Matt Clark, a 69-year-old Pasadena resident heard the protest from his nearby apartment. He yelled back at protestors to stop criticizing President Obama, and was briefly allowed to take the stage.

He was quickly booed off.

"I kept hearing derogatory things about the president from up in my apartment," said Clark after his short-lived appearance on stage. "I don't really know what they are protesting about, but what I heard was not right."

Breitbart had made no derogatory remarks, so I think Mr. Clark was offended that demonstrators referred to President Obama as "socialist." As seen in the photograph below, both Breitbart and Clark became animated. After this scene, Mr. Clark threw up his hands of left the protest.

The disruption distracted a bit from what Breitbart had to say: "The Repubican Party is dysfuncational and embarrassing," he exclaimed. Then, extolling the grassroots anti-tax protests, Breitbart announced, "There isn't another movement that has the best interests of this country in mind." The reference to "another movement" was to today's International ANSWER demonstration in downtown Los Angeles, where protesters marched for a blanket amnesty for the untold millions of illegal aliens in the country. Noting the relatively sparse crowd in Pasadena, Breitbart warned, "We better learn how to protest" if conservatives are going to match the activism of the radical left:

This woman shown below was hanging out with the event organizers. She's holding an outstanding poster, "Socialism is Not the Answer":

Here's the crowd after Victoria Jackson finished speaking. I counted over 100 people in attendence before Andrew Breitbart began speaking, and probably a dozen or so people trailed away by the time Ms. Jackson was finished:

I asked this woman below if I could get her picture just before I left. She was very gracious, and happy I'd taken interest in her poster:

I'll be writing more about the Tea Party protests as things on the conservative side move forward.

Nothwithstanding Mr. Clark's one-man counter-demonstration, today's event felt dramatically subued compared to the April 15th Tax Day Rallies that swept the nation last month. Politically, for me, the Pasadena rally showed that movement organizers need to realize that angry protesters denouncing the Democrats in Washington as "socialist" isn't enough. Frankly, today's event was something of a rehash of the "Orange County Tax Day Tea Party." I certainly don't want to demean the Pasadena rally. I love the Tea Parties. I love to see conservatives gettting out to champion the cause of freedom and to protest the unbelievable incompetence and hubris that is the Barack Obama administration.

However, Californians will vote on a slew of state tax measures in less than three weeks. Today's theme should not have been Obama's socialism (which is an old story, and likely to get more painful for Joe Sixpacks in neighborhoods around the country, and not to mention the unborn); organizers should have instead focused on the conservative movement's proactive agenda to take back the country. You've got to hammer a positive message if folks are going to listen. The talk has got to be about action and not plain grievance. Why didn't event planners hoist an effigy of "Benedict" Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Polls show the Propostion 1A ballot package trailing badly in public opinion. That's a message that the media should be picking up on, not just some cranky Obama-backer rousted from his barcalounger by the loudspeakers. A defeat for 1A will deliver a powerful anti-tax message to the nation, not unlike the popular tax revolt that followed California's Proposition 13 in 1978.

There's still time, and today was something of tough day for counteracting left-wing media bias in any case (with the local media covering the socialist May Day events around the clock). But event planners need to keep their eyes on the ball, and they'll need even better planning and coordination. Victoria Jackson's passionate, but she didn't even mention the national political promise in repudiatng Arnold Schwarzengger's tax hikes at the polls on May 19th. The Tea Party planners must realize and exploit the possibilities of federalism in the U.S. system, which in the case of a new Golden State tax revolt, will be perfectly tuned to the national message of restoring liberty in the age of Obamessianism.

I'll have more reporting and analysis on these developments in the weeks ahead.

Amnistia! May Day Protesters for Mass Legalization

International ANSWER, the neo-Stalinist antiwar organization, was a major organizer for today's mass demonstration in downtown Los Angeles demanding blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. Protest organizers are trying to hide the explicit reconquista agenda seen at the 2006 demonstrations, but only the media packaging has changed. Amid the red, white, and blue, protesters are waving plenty of Mexican flags along the march. From the Los Angeles Times:

Kim Priestap is also blogging the protests, "Illegal Immigration Protests: Bolshevik Revolution Redux?":

Today's protests are an attempt at an immigrant revolution. The protests' organizers, ANSWER, a communist organization founded by Ramsey Clark, have convinced the illegal and legal immigrants that they are the oppressed "proletariat" exploited by the "bourgeoisie," which is why they use language (we clean your toilets, we watch your children, we pick your fruit and vegetables) that pits the illegal and legal immigrants against the middle class. This is classic communist propaganda meant to "empower" the masses of the "oppressed" immigrants and to intimidate congress and the American people into giving illegal immigrants full amnesty.

I'll be heading up to Pasadena early this afternoon to cover tonight's May Day! May Day! anti-socialist demonstration, part of the ongoing Tea Parties seeking to counter the Obama administration's collectivist program.

The mass media/progressive-left alliance has been attacking the Tea Parties as racist and reactionary, a rebellion against the "black man" in the White House.

The funny thing is, of course, the progressive-ANSWER alliance really does want a revolution, and the mainstream press is all too eager to give it to them.

I should have a full report from Pasadena available in the morning, so stay tuned.

UPDATE: I've fixed the pictures and links to the Los Angeles Times from this morning. Here's the latest report from the Times, "Hope and urgency at marches for immigration reform."

"An Abiding Hatred of Academia"

Via Robert Stacy McCain's comments, here's Mike LaRoche on his one-year blog anniversary:

Next week, my time at an academic institution with which I have been affiliated for nearly a decade comes to an end. And not a moment too soon. I love the subject I teach - history - but I have developed a deep and abiding hatred of academia that I doubt will ever abate. Twice in the last seven years, two different colleagues have tried to ruin me professionally and financially. But I am still standing, much to the chagrin of those two sons-of-bitches, no doubt.

In three months, I will be moving to another city in the great state of Texas to begin a new phase in my career as a historian. It is a move I should have made earlier, in retrospect, but better late than never. I will have more to say about the coming move in a later post.

I have to admit I share the pain sometimes, but I'm extremely lucky to be working with fellow political scientists ranging from moderate to conservative, including one former Reagan White House staffer.

I can't, of course, say that about the rest of my division colleagues (including a couple of International ANSWER activists), but conservatives can't give up the battle for control of America's cultural institutions, especially in education, the mass media, and Hollywood.

GOP at Risk of Becoming Monochromatic Party?

Here's Ronald Brownstein on the implications for the GOP of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party:

In one sense, Specter's defection merely continues a generation-long trend. Since the 1960s, each party's electoral coalition has grown more ideologically homogenous as conservatives have migrated away from the Democratic Party, and liberals and moderates have moved away from the GOP. That ideological resorting has thinned the ranks of Republican House and Senate members from left-leaning areas such as the Northeast and the West Coast and has culled Democrats from conservative regions, principally the South.

This ideological and geographic sorting-out has narrowed each party's reach. But Democrats in recent years have maintained a broader coalition, both in Congress and among voters, by demonstrating more receptivity to diverse views. In the Senate, for instance, Democrats hold 22 of the 58 seats representing the 29 states that twice voted for George W. Bush. And just 40 percent of self-identified Democrats consider themselves liberals, according to Gallup polling; the rest identify as moderate or conservative.

By contrast, the GOP is becoming an increasingly monochromatic party, dominated by the most conservative voters and regions. This process enormously accelerated under Bush and Karl Rove, who built their governing strategy on energizing the Republican base rather than on expanding it by courting swing voters. Today, Democrats hold their largest advantage in party identification over Republicans since President Reagan's first term, and 70 percent of the shrunken GOP core identifies as conservative. After Specter's leap, Republicans hold just two of the 36 Senate seats in the 18 mostly affluent and secular "blue-wall" states that twice voted against Bush -- and that have now voted Democratic in each of the past five presidential elections.

Notice Brownstein's framing: The Democrats have reached out "more receptively" and "maintained a broader coalition," while the Republicans have "thinned the ranks " and have become "an increasingly monochromatic party."

The Repubicans, in other words, have emerged as a "fearmongering neo-fascist hate-machine."

That's all well and good for the Democratic/progressive Republican political establishment that wants to turn the GOP into the party of gay marriage and cap-and-trade.

But as the power of the Tea Party movement is demonstrating, Republicans won't return to power by "running as a less enthusiastic version of big-government Democrats."

See also, Nice Deb, "For You Slow Learners Who Still Haven’t Figured Out The Tea Parties."

GOP-Smearing Image Credit: David Hoogland Noon.

Let Them Wear Lanvin Sneakers!

First Lady Michelle Obama volunteered at a D.C. food bank on Wednesday sporting $540 Lanvin sneakers:

Red State has the story, "Michelle Antoinette and the Don’t-Go-To-The-Mall Administration:"

It goes without saying that a Republican First Lady who showed up at a food bank during a recession wearing $540 sneakers would never hear the end of it, let alone one who had lectured voters on learning to make do with less. But you know, it goes deeper than that. Remember how Barack Obama relentlessly mocked George W. Bush, in the tone of a petulant teenager who can’t believe what Dad told him to do, for advising Americans to “go shopping” after September 11? Well, President Bush was absolutely in the right: the nation needed reassuring, and it needed to both sustain the consumer confidence and consumer demand that are the engines of our economy, and demonstrate to the world that we don’t change our routines to satisfy terrorists.

It's worth a click just for the ghoulish picture of the First Lady!

Resisting the "Post-American" Meme

Via GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD, check out Mark Davis, "We will regret 'post-American' outcome":

One generation never knows exactly what world it will pass to the next. But there is an alarming term making the rounds these days that seems a likely adjective for the era we are being guided toward:

"Post-American."

This is to be distinguished, I suppose, from "un-American," indicative of actual loathing of the substance and behaviors of our nation. "Post-American" is pitched as the attitude that accepts and may even embrace the passing of America's era of global leadership.

I would hope it is impossible to be ambivalent about such a monumental global moment. Surely there are only those people who cheer this development as refreshing and timely and those who dread it for the certain dangers it poses.

Count me among the second group, and I would like a word with the first.

I have always believed that there are many ways to love America. Sharing my politics is not a precondition. But I have watched elected officials denigrate a war in progress (that we are now winning), soften borders that once protected us, erode cultural standards that once united us, and now attack an economic crisis not with an energizing call to boldness and courage but with astonishing spending designed to spawn dependency and thus political obedience.

Is it any wonder that the America my father handed to me seems nearly extinct?

President Barack Obama is not the cause of this disease, but he is a carrier. His words and actions reveal that he considers the United States to be an important nation but not the singular land every generation since America's birth has been taught about. That teaching, of course, changed a long time ago. For almost a half-century, schoolchildren have digested thick units that make sure to scold us for slavery, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps and other sins.

Where is the curriculum that teaches that beyond our flaws, we have been the greatest society the world has known? We have built that legacy with a devotion to liberty and leadership unmatched in modern times. Yet we are led today by people who see the United States as merely the name between Ukraine and Uruguay on the United Nations lobby directory.

What we used to widely feel has been given a fitting name: American exceptionalism. It does not teach that we are without sin or that we cannot learn. It teaches that against the backdrop of history, no country has freed, fed or inspired more people than the United States. No nation has contributed more to science, culture or enlightened thought.

Today, that magnificent view is dismissed as tired jingoism.

More at the link.

Pasadena Patriots' Anti-Socialist Rally

From the press release, "Pasadena Patriots to Hold Huge 'May Day Anti-Socialism Rally":

Following their highly successful April 11 Anti-Tax Tea Party protest, The Pasadena Patriots is organizing an exciting and unique May Day-themed rally to protest against increased government socialism and higher taxes at the state and national level. The event will kick off with a rally at Pasadena City Hall at 4pm on May 1 with VIP guest speakers including political pundit Andrew Breitbart, SNL's Victoria Jackson, comedian Evan Sayet as well suprise guests and actual survivors of the socialist nightmare abroad ....

Why are we doing this? Big government politicians in Washington are threatening the American way of life with increased nationalization of private business, an unprecedented expansion of the federal government, higher taxes, as well as alarming talk of regulating free speech and targeting specificindustries and individuals with “windfall taxes” to “spread the wealth.”

In the state of California, powerful unions and freespending politicians have driven our state to the brink of bankruptcy and excessive taxes including the draconian Proposition 1-A continue to drive businesses away from the state. Americans must recognize the real cost of this path to socialism, both in dollars and in our liberty. The Pasadena Patriots encourages citizens to join the Pasadena May Day rally and fight for capitalism, low-taxes, and the freedom of the individual before it is too late.

The Pasadena Tea Party’s May Day rally and parade will take place at 4pm on Friday, May 1, 2009 on the steps of the Pasadena City Hall located at 100 N. Garfield Ave., Pasadena, CA 91109.

I'll be there.

I should have a Pasadena May Day! May Day! photo-essay available Saturday!

Related: Mark Mecker, "President Obama Mocks the Tea Party Patriots Across the Nation."

Do You Feel Safer?

That's the query in the new House Republican ad buy that features President Barack Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and images from the September 11 attacks:

Because it features Obama meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the ad's been attacked as "racist": “It is not only inflammatory to the Latino community but the singling out of a groups for that categorization is racist.”

Right on cue ...

Professor William Robinson: "Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw"

For those just getting up to speed on the William Robinson controversy (discussed here), here's a portion from the e-mail that's the basis for the investigation:

Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw - a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians, subjecting them to the slow death of malnutrition, disease and despair, nearly two years before their subjection to the quick death of Israeli bombs. We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide (Websters: “the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group”), a process whose objective is not so much to physically eliminate each and every Palestinian than to eliminate the Palestinians as a people in any meaningful sense of the notion of people-hood.

Check the comments from my post from this morning - and the links therein, if you've got the stomach - for some sample pushback from the anti-Israel forces arrayed against those speaking truth to moral clarity.

Ken Davenport's responded to my earlier essay, "Your Tax Dollars at Work."

See also, David Horowitz, "Finally a University Takes Action Against a Faculty Agitator in the Classroom." And, Inside Higher Ed has a report, "Crossing a Line."

At UCSB, see the campus mobilization efforts to defend Robinson, "Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB." It turns out that Noam Chomsky's coming to Robinson's defense, "Scholars Condemn Attack on Academic Freedom at UC-Santa Barbara."

Public Takes Conservative Turn on Abortion

Actually, the full survey report is, "Public Takes Conservative Turn on Gun Control, Abortion." But I'm particularly interested in the findings on abortion:

Between August and late October 2008, the proportion supporting legal abortion ranged from 57% (in mid-October) to 53% (in late October), before declining to 46% currently. Though opinion among some subgroups varied significantly across those surveys, some trends are apparent, aside from the falloff in support among men.

There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44% do so today. In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October (from 67% to 57%). In the current survey, just 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.

Among religious groups, support for abortion has steadily declined since August among white mainline Protestants (from 69% then to 54% currently). And just 23% of white evangelical Protestants now favor legal abortion, down from 33% in August and mid-October and 28% in late October.

The change has been less pronounced among white non-Hispanic Catholics: In August, 51% said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases; in both October surveys, 55% favored legal abortion. In the current survey, 49% of white non-Hispanic Catholics say that abortion should be legal while 42% believe it should be illegal.

I have a feeling that the decline in support for abortions has a more than a little to do with the "galling ghoulishness" of our new president. With Obama setting out to make abortions more available - and life less precious - it's no wonder that Americans are becoming more pro-life.

There's more public opinion from Pew at Memeorandum, and the racial breakdown of the electorate in 2008.

Mark Levin: "Take Back Our Institutions"

John Hawkins has an awesome interview with Mark Levin at Right Wing News:

Let me play devil's advocate right off the bat here. What would you say to someone who said George Bush campaigned twice as a conservative, won both times and yet he did curtail our freedoms. He did increase the power of the state. He also opposed gay marriage, which means he wanted to limit freedom. So given that, isn't conservatism statist as well?

Well, I think somebody who says that is conflating Republican Party labels with conservative philosophy. There is no perfection in any politician and just because they become President doesn't change that -- and that's certainly the case with George Bush, who on the way out, declared free markets basically dead. There is a lot about Bush I admire and there is a lot about him that I regret -- and I would say that about his father. I'd say it about Richard Nixon. I'd say it about Gerald Ford.

This has been a struggle within the Republican Party, frankly, since the New Deal and I think it's time for conservatives to rally. We are not responsible for the baggage of non-conservatives. We're more than happy to explain it but it doesn't get us too far.

As for the issue of gay marriage, the American people speak to this time and time again when they're permitted to -- and they're opposed to it. So who favors it? The elite, the courts, maybe the Vermont Assembly?

But for the most part, the overwhelming majority of Americans and their representatives oppose it. So, it's not a matter of statism when the people oppose something that they believe is inappropriate -- and we're speaking to the proper role of the state not to the gay lifestyle, per se -- at least I'm not.

So, the question is who decides and how is it decided? For the most part it appears that the courts decided that they're going to decide. Well, why should they? Just because you declare something a civil rights issue doesn't mean that you get to destroy the nature in which our government was established. Same sex marriage, which is what it is, is not a civil right. It is a political issue and it should be decided in that context, not by the courts who are trying to constitutionalize their viewpoints.

Read the whole thing at the link. I really love Levin's response to the question of what to do about the left's dominance of America's cultural institutions, in the schools, the media, and in cinema:

The way we do that is to start becoming part of those institutions. You know, the statist doesn't have a birthright ownership to Hollywood or the media, generally speaking, or the school system and, you know, we conservatives for a very long time believed in "live and let live" and that's completely understandable.

We believed in doing the best you can for yourself and your family and going to church and synagogue and being a good citizen and that's very, very important. But now, I think we have to extend that being a good citizen means being open to being a professor or schoolteacher or an editor or reporter or a director or assistant producer in Hollywood -- and there is no reason why we need to feed forever these very crucial institutions to the statists.

We need to fight back on all levels. We need to become smarter and more numerous. We need to explain to our children and our grandchildren, regardless of what they learned from television and their schools, that America is a magnificent place -- that when we wake up every morning, we should thank God that we're here and that unlike the statists, we are here to preserve and better our society -- not to destroy it and then transform it. These are the over-arching principles that we need to spread. We need to spread the word about the greatness of America. We need to start in our homes and in our own communities.

And check Memeorandum as well.

William Robinson, UCSB Sociology Professor, Compares Israel to the Nazis

This morning's Los Angeles Times reports on William I. Robinson, a professor of Sociology at UC Santa Barbara, who is in the middle of a controversy of his own making after he sent e-mails to students comparing Israel's recent Gaza incursion to the Holocaust:

Controversy has erupted at UC Santa Barbara over a professor's decision to send his students an e-mail in which he compared graphic images of Jews in the Holocaust to pictures of Palestinians caught up in Israel's recent Gaza offensive.

The e-mail by tenured sociology professor William I. Robinson has triggered a campus investigation and drawn accusations of anti-Semitism from two national Jewish groups, even as many students and faculty members have voiced support for him.

The uproar began in January when Robinson sent his message -- titled "parallel images of Nazis and Israelis" -- to the 80 students in his sociology of globalization class.

The e-mail contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis, including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson.

"Gaza is Israel's Warsaw -- a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians," the professor wrote. "We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide."

Two Jewish students dropped the class, saying they felt intimidated by the professor's message. They contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which advised them to file formal complaints with the university.

In their letters, senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman accused Robinson of violating the campus' faculty code of conduct by disseminating personal, political material unrelated to his course.

"I was shocked," said Joseph, 22. "He overstepped his boundaries as a professor. He has his own freedom of speech, but he doesn't have the freedom to send his students his own opinion that is so strong."

Read the whole thing. Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, called out Robinson for his "anti-Semitism," and the local ADL branch in Santa Barbara also repudiated Robinson, sending a letter to Robinson at UCSB requesting that he renounce his statements on Israel.

Professor Robinson defends himself by saying he's Jewish and by suggesting that the controversy is "like saying if I condemn the U.S. government for the invasion of Iraq, I'm anti-American ... It's the most absurd, baseless argument."

Well, actually, speaking of anti-Americanism. Folks should check Robinson's homepage, where he announces his Marxist praxis right there in the introduction:

As a scholar-activist I attempt to link my academic work to struggles in the United States, in the Americas, and around the world for social justice, popular empowerment, participatory democracy, and people-centered development.

Hmm, that's enough to run a few tingles down the legs of William Ayers and Ward Churchill.

But check Robinsons' Flickr account, which features photos from the professor's travels, including a visit to the FMLN in El Salvador, with the poster above captioned as, "'Towards Socialism through the Democratic Revolution.' In the Escuela de Cuadros, San Salvador, 27 September 2008."

Robinson's also seen here directing FMLN militants seeking to topple the "US-backed governing party, ARENA."

But remember, there's no left-wing indoctrination at America's colleges and universities.

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche!

Christine Todd Whitman Channels Meghan McCain

The alleged battle for the soul of the Republican Party continues in the wake of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party.

CNN has a piece up entitled, "GOP set to launch rebranding effort," and the New York Times features a piece entitled, "G.O.P. Debate: A Broader Party or a Purer One?" Also, check the Washington Post's, "Will GOP Sleep Through Wake-Up Call?" (all via Memeorandum).

But the best story this morning is former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman's essay at the New York Times, "It’s Still My Party," and this quote in particular is gold:

Arlen Specter made his decision to leave the party after years of being attacked by fellow Republicans. I can understand how he felt, but I believe that now, more than ever, it is important for us moderates to stay and work from within. One thing we can be sure of is that we will have no impact on the party’s direction if we leave.

Okay. Right.

And what impact would that be? How about forming an alliance with radical left-wing gay marriage activists? Yeah, that's a sure magnet for retaining the GOP base!

And don't even get me going on Whitman's global warming hysteria. Check out what the former EPA Director had to say about the policies of her former boss, President George W. Bush:

When I was administrator of the EPA, and we were putting together the report card on the environment, and it came to the issue of climate change, the Council on Environmental Quality was very willing to listen to scientists both within and outside the White House who had doubts [about human-induced climate change] and could not reach compromise. As a result, I refused to put compromised language in the report, and just described climate change as an important issue and referred people to the most recent studies on it at the time. Clearly, there was an economic concern that drove the administration’s focus. But that happens with every administration. You have a bias and you’re going to try to promote it—that doesn’t mean you’re trying to mislead the public.

And who was that misleading the public?

But check the homepage for Whitman's political action committee, "Republican Leadership Council," which includes this:

*Protection of the environment; and
* Less government interference in individual lives.

"Less governmentt interference in lives"? Sure, but only in the social realm: Whitman wants government adjusting your thermostat, but the radical "gay" agenda is hands off!

Bah! Progressive Republicans!

I'm not going to be surprised when Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan endorse Whitman's program. That's "working from within," alright! To blow the place up!

The Coming Prop 1A Train Wreck

The new California Field Poll portends a rough ride for the slew of Schwarzenegger ballot initiatives on May 19th: "Field Poll: California voters oppose five of six May 19 ballot measures."

This passage from the Sacramento Bee report summarizes things perfectly:

If there is a message in the latest poll on May 19 special election measures 1A through 1F, it may be that voters want their political leaders to solve California's fiscal crisis and stop passing the buck through ballot measures.

My impression is that this slate of initiatives is both cowardly and confusing.

The second measure, Proposition 1B, can't pass unless Proposition 1A is approved. Prop 1A raises taxes but claims to mandate a cap on future spending. Prop 1B will increase spending to California's schools. This situation has the teachers' unions working at cross-purposes, and some are literally tied in knots. The California Teachers Association (my union) supports the entire slate of initiatives. The California Federation of Teachers opposes Prop 1A but supports 1B, which makes no logical sense.

And if you check the "Vote No on 1A" website you'll find the strangest of strange-bedfellows coalition opposing 1A:

ACORN California
AFSCME
The Arc of California
California Alliance of Retired Americans
California Church Impact
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
California Pan Ethnic Health Center
California Partnership
California Primary Care Association
California School Boards Association
California Women’s Agenda
Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County
Congress of California Seniors
Consumer Federation of California
Having Our Say Coalition
Health Access California
League of Women Voters of California
League of Young Voters
Older Women’s League
Peace Inc.
Progressive Democratic Club of Los Angeles
SEIU CA State Council
Senior Action Network
SIREN
Union of Health Care Professionals/United Nurses Associations of California

As is often the case in California politics, what happens here has national ramifications. For more on that, see Hugh Hewitt, "Very Good News For the GOP, and Why President Obama Had Better Worry About Not Becoming Another Arnold."

Arlon the Democrat!

Look, we all make mistakes blogging, and in the blogosphere your adversaries will be the first to point them out!

So, let me take this opportunity to get a good laugh out of Dr. Hussein "There's No Class Warfare" Biobrain and his post on Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, "Arlon the Democrat."

Yes, that's right: "Arlon" Specter. I thought Dr. Biobrain was laying down the snark, since that's pretty much all the guy does (being unable to provide actual critical commentary and analysis on the issues). But no, this post is genuine, "Arlon the Democrat":

One of the big things I don't understand about the debate on Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party is how his detractors imagine they're making any sense ....

I think we're going to see a different Arlon Specter. I think Arlon is looking out for Arlon and that means he's going to be siding with us. Not that he'll take the lead on much or give as much support as we'd like, but I predict that he'll be a much better Democrat now that he's a Democrat.

Okay, I admit it: I typed in Arlen "Spector" when I first wrote about the defection yesterday, but caught it before hitting "publish." Maybe Phil Spector's murder conviction had something to do with it, being recent news and all.

But "Arlon"?

Where in the world did that come from? Klingon? A Biobrain turn-on? Beats me?

Maybe Dr. BioDenialistBarebackerNihilist needs to take a break from Reppy's place so he can catch up on some actual news and information!

Obama's Deficit

Obama's intellectual deficit, that is, in addition to fiscal ...

This graph showing the Obama administration's projected deficits is not new, but a couple of my fellow bloggers are posting it with reference to Obama's townahll meeting today as a comparison to Bush-era budget deficits:

Nice Deb's got the quote:

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

“But,” Obama continued, “let’s not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act.”

Moe Lane's got both the graph and the video from the townhall event, and he adds:

He’s not really all that gracious when it comes to dealing with people that don’t already love him, is he? Kind of smirky, with a faint flavor of exasperation. But perhaps I’m just being mean and cynical: if you really want to have a conversation on our financial situation, Mr. President, that’d be great. Can we start with this?

"This" would be the graph.

More at Memeorandum.

You're a Professor, Really?

Without a doubt, the most frequent left-wing attack on me and my writing is some variation of, "I can't believe you're a professor."

The "I can't believe you're a professor" attack is not really a repudiation of ideas (the slur almost never comes with an actually rebuttal of the issues at hand), but is meant ultimately to excoriate, to harm, to indict, and to inflict pain against those who refuse the progressive party line. And Lenin forbid (not God, for they are atheist) a professor of political science deviate from the left's ongoing campaign to dominate all the institutions of cultural values and learning.

Note here that I am just reporting this, not complaining. Leftists have no power over me as an activist and thinker, since I don't let them.

Still, it's just extraordinary how the "I can't believe you're a professor" attack reveals how entrenched is the totalitarian mindset among secular progressives. The thought that someone who holds traditional views would actually be standing in front of a classroom filled with young people, debating issues with facts and reason, is simply horrifying to those marinated in an ideology of hated and intolerance. Leftists mean to intimidate. Their goal is to shout down, to repudiate, to scourge, and to demonize those who find reason in faith and values, and especially those who are best able to cut through the postmodernist clutter to reveal the left's project of nihilistic relativism and destruction of culture.

The left wants to obliterate right and wrong. What happens on my blog - the attacks and the endless trolling by the nihilist extremists - is a miniature version of the media establishment's campaign against Carrie Prejean. Just the thought that someone like Prejean could hold traditional values, and especially that she'd stand up for them in public, brings out the cultural barbarians of the left. They constantly attempt to beat down people like Carrie Prejean, and in so doing they only reveal the depths of their own depravity.

I wrote the other day on Tristero at Hullabaloo, and his embarrassingly lame defense of atheistic culture (in his ignorance, Tristero attacked Sam Harris as an "asshole," although Harris' books are at the top of the pantheon of popular atheist radicalism).

In response, I get this in the comments from "Anonymous":

It boggles the mind to think that you are employed at an institution of higher learning. The intelligence one finds in your writing is typical of a junior-high school student. A very sheltered and rather unimaginative one.

"Anonymous" makes absolutely no effort to defend Tristero's stupidity, nor does he make any argument of his own. "Anonyomous" just attacks. He rejects my intelligence and my standing as a professor. How dare you deviate of the prevailing ideological program!

As noted, these attacks are common. I saved a classic example of the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur from a post last year, "Matt Yglesias, Jennifer Palmieri, and the Third Way." As some readers know, Matthew Yglesias is an American communist. There is no position that's too far to the left for that man. Thus my takedown of Yglesias at the post above brought out this attack from "chrsux," who took saw my "pro-victory" profile at the sidebar, and bared his fangs:

Re: "pro-victory Associate Professor of Political Science" ...

So, is this a tenure track position?

Perhaps if you taught at some place other than long beach community college, your vocation might carry some weight. As it stands, your position affords you the same amount of respect as someone whose profile reads: "pro-victory guy standing on a random street corner"

Note something about this one: It's not just the "I can't believe you're a professor" attack, but it's also the "you're not really a professor" variant, since I teach at a two-year college. The attack on my status as professor at community college is particularly informative. By attacking community colleges as "not real colleges," leftists provide the perfect signal of their alliance with nation's cultural elite (especially the tenured radicals who long ago infiltrated the universities, turning them into training grounds for the shock troops of the revolution). Leftists thus demonstrate the total hypocrisy of their ideology. Radicals care nothing about the lives and hardships of many in the classic community college demographic: the minorities, the poor, and those without even the basic reading skills to comprehend a Marxist tract.

It's not just in the comments either.

The appropriately-named Deranged Left-Wing Baker wrote an entire post chronicling his disbelief and frustration at my rationalism: "A Professor, Really?":

The more I read American Power, the harder it is for me to believe that Donald Douglas is actually a professor. He has to be either intellectually dishonest or have severe comprehension problems. Either way, I pity the student who has to suffer under his tutelage.

The last sentence is especially key, the "pitying the student" who's not under the allegedly superior tutelage of some far left-wing professor ramming doctrines of anti-capitalist hatred and postmodern anti-rationalist epistemology down the throats of his students.

Deranged Left-Wing Baker links to one of the prominent antagonists of this blog, TBogg at Firedoglake.

TBogg's cultivated the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur to high art: I'm smeared as the "JuCo Toynbee," which includes the snarky reference to "junior college," itself a term that's out of fashion in the community college academy as derograting the crucial role in education that two-year colleges serve.

But the resistance to me is clear from all of this: I stand up for moral clarity, reason, and truth. But we can't have that in the 21st century. Pretty soon, if leftists had their way, I'd be down on my knees apologizing to the commissars at the gates of the gulag, repudiating my offenses to the high collectivist state as a capitalist roader and a traitor to his eminence, "The One."

As was true of Carrie Prejean, leftists won't stop their campaign of villification until they control all of the institutions of the cultural superstructure.

This is why I fight. It's a battle for the soul of the nation, and every minute I'm engaged is worth the effort to preserve, what little I can, the exceptionalism that's made this country great, not to mention the liberty that allows the secular collectivists to mount their program of cultural extermination in the first place.

What Specter's Defection Means

Here's Fred Barnes on the significance of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party:

My one rule of politics is that the future is never a straight line projection of the present. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's unexpected decision to switch parties and run for re-election in 2010 as a Democrat proves the rule. Mr. Specter often votes for liberal Democratic initiatives and infuriates conservative Republicans. Still, his surprise defection was a crushing setback for the GOP, instantly reducing what limited power Republicans have in the Senate. The GOP's ability to stop liberal legislation is now weakened if not eliminated in some instances.

Mr. Specter's jump across the aisle significantly adds to the heavy Republican burden in Senate races next year. True, the political climate then may be more favorable for Republican gains; the economy probably won't be booming and the president's popularity won't be sky-high. But there's a problem: the map.

The states with Senate races in 2010 do not favor Republicans. They must defend 19 seats, six in states won handily by Barack Obama. In three -- New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio -- Democrats also have a built-in, blue-state edge. Indeed it was the strong Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania that prompted Mr. Specter's switch. In two other states -- Florida and North Carolina -- Republican chances are no better than fair. Only in Iowa, with incumbent Chuck Grassley a shoo-in for re-election, are Republicans assured of holding on in Obamaland.

Losing one or two or three Senate seats on the heels of Mr. Specter's departure would be devastating for Republicans. Already his defection has robbed them of their most reliable weapon in blocking President Obama's liberal proposals. If the 60 Democrats (counting Mr. Specter and Al Franken) stick together, they can keep Republicans from getting the 41 votes for a successful filibuster.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Related: Loads of analysis on Specter at Memeorandum.

Photo Credit: Midnight Blue.

Leslie Gelb: Necessity, Choice, and Common Sense

Leslie H. Gelb's new essay in Foreign Affairs is rather odd.

Entitled, "Necessity, Choice, and Common Sense: A Policy for a Bewildering World," Gelb pretty much rejects every major assertion of U.S. power in the last 50 years as driven by "the demons of ideology, politics, and arrogance." Even G.H.W. Bush's State Department is taken down as giving Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990 (Amabassodor April Glaspie's remark that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts"). It's hard to take his attacks seriously from a credibility standpoint. Just three years ago Gelb - along with then Senator Joseph Biden - was calling for the dismemberment of Iraq, during the high point of American difficulties there, which most likely would have exacerbated the alreading deadly violence, turning the country into the Middle East's version of the Yugoslavian slaughterhouse of the 1990s.

At the Foreign Affairs piece, Gelb also harsly criticizes each of the major foreign policy orientations on the scene today: realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and neoconservatism (and a couple of others). The repudiation of realism is particulary strange coming from Gelb, who himself is generally a "realist insider" and his policy proposals here and elsewhere represent classical realist foreign policy thinking (with a narrow material focus on what's in the national interest).

Here's the passage:

The core problem is not American democracy or American ideals or American power. It is Americans themselves. In part, leading Democrats and Republicans mishandle the politics of U.S. foreign policy. Most Democrats adhere to fundamental liberal beliefs about the value of negotiations and cooperation with other states. At the same time, however, they calculate that this will sound too soft to mainstream Americans. As a result, they seem to be torn between their beliefs and their politics, and they create the impression that they were for something before they were against it and against it before they were for it. Democrats convey uncertainty about what they will do; the public senses this and then loses confidence in how they will manage national security.

By contrast, the Republicans exude nothing but conviction about the virtues of being aggressive, standing up to any possible adversary, and painting the world in simple black and white. They are forever proclaiming that they will never allow the United States to be pushed around in the world. And although Republicans have little regard for careful formulations of problems and difficulties, and the public senses this as well, mainstream Americans appear to like the Republicans' conviction. Thus, the American public has more confidence in the GOP than in the Democratic Party when it comes to international affairs.

In part, the moderates are reluctant to fight for the reasonable portrayal of problems and what can be done about them. The moderates know that good policy requires an open and honest review of the facts. They know that the effective use of power requires being able to push a range of buttons until some are found to work. Yet they do not fight for choice.

Most foreign policy experts are pushing for a new grand strategy to replace the old strategy of containment. They are disposed toward big ideas and toward wedging all the pieces of a problem snugly together into one big, neat theory. They are not enamored of loose ends or unintended consequences, which call their expertise into question. To their credit, most contribute valuable perspective and insights, although not without drawbacks.

The neoconservatives rightly remind Americans that irredeemable and irreconcilable evil is out there. But then they paint almost all foreign opponents (and some domestic ones as well) with a similar brush. They see past enemies, such as China and Russia, as future enemies as well. And they portray the United States' allies, particularly the European ones, as mostly worthless: lacking any military power and averse to the use of force.

The reality is that the neoconservatives will never be happy unless they are promoting some form of ideological warfare. Some of them argue that instead of the old ideological clash between democracy and communism, there is a new one: between democracy and autocracy - the United States versus China and Russia. But the leaders of China and Russia are not going around the world proselytizing for their forms of government today the way their communist predecessors did. Rather, Moscow is playing its old power games by trying to muscle its neighbors, but this time mostly with economic rather than military power. At this point, China's leaders are interested almost solely in protecting themselves from domestic threats. The only preaching being done by these two autocracies is against the United States' "unilateralism," and they do this to give themselves some elbowroom for pursuing their own limited global concerns. If there is anything approaching an ideological battle in the world today, it is between what other states perceive as U.S. unilateralism and their own new sense of entitlement.

The realists, comfortable with power, rightly remind Washington to focus on the United States' vital interests rather than take on all the world's problems. But they are often too impressed by power per se. Many of them were too eager to embrace Saddam, for all his sins and unpredictability, as a counterweight to Iran. Many now are eager to excuse the rough behavior of China and Russia as merely what big dictatorial nations do. And they have not paid much attention to how to use U.S. power with failed or failing states or to address new transnational issues, such as the environment. The realists continue to chafe at the value of values and the U.S. president's need to espouse them to sustain his foreign policy at home. Their realism is sometimes actually not realistic enough, and when it is not, the realists overlook both policy choices and policy areas that call for the application of power.

The liberal internationalists still exist today as an important element within the Democratic Party. Their most impressive contribution has been to keep reminding Washington of the need to cooperate with allies and negotiate with adversaries in almost all instances. But since the Vietnam War, they have been calling for new international institutions without being specific or practical about them, and they have been drifting toward softer and more unrealistic definitions of power. Formulating a strategy is difficult for them because it is mainly a call for more negotiations and more multilateral diplomacy and less reliance on military power and force. To complicate matters further, when they come under great political pressure, many of them appear to abandon these principles and become war hawks themselves, as happened when the decision to invade Iraq was being debated.

Interestingly, some of the liberal Democrats have joined with the neoconservatives to form a new group that advocates a concert of democracies, or some kind of institutional alliance to consolidate like-minded democracies. That sounds like a helpful project, and it might even be one, if its advocates would demonstrate how they propose to corral the world's hundred or more democracies. Besides, they make little room in their concert for China and Russia, which are not democracies but matter more than, say, Botswana, Costa Rica, Peru, or Mauritius when it comes to diplomatic coalitions and power.

Then, of course, there are the globalizers, who, to their credit, bear witness to the new centrality of economics, which the national-security-oriented foreign policy clan traditionally ignores - out of ignorance. But the globalizers still tend to overplay their hand by suggesting that economics will bring peace and democracy. Notoriously, they scant diplomatic and military choices.

As you can see, Gelb's got most everyone in the crosshairs of his analysis.

Gelb's final recommendation is for partisans to simply abandon their ideologies and to come together: "that pragmatists, realists, and moderates unite and fight for their country."

Reading this piece you'd think partisanship was not only something new, but it was taken to extraordinary lengths during the G.W. Bush years. This then caused a near-inevitable decline in American preponderance, which only "common sense" will cure.

The truth is that politics and ideology are twins, and that current trends toward hyperpartisanship will continue indefinitely. Rather than reach for a new paradigm eschewing ideology, the current administration should continue to stabilize Iraq and to further prioritize America's mission in Afghanistan. In the background is the economy. As the market continues to shake out toxic assets, and as businesses begin to invest in infrastructure, inventories, and human capital, the U.S. will come roaring back once again to lead another cycle of international prosperity. Talk of U.S. decline - already foolish - will look simply ignorant at that time.

Perhaps Gelb will be retired by then, no longer calling for the partition of countries where the U.S. has committed itself to security and democratization.