Newsflash! Women Bullying Women at Work is Really Patriarchal Blame-Shifting Plot!

After decades of increasing opportunity for women in American life, the focus of gender equality in the workplace is shifting to other subtle barriers to advancement outside the normal structures of male dominance. According to the New York Times's, "Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work," women on women bullying constitutes 40 percent of the cases of workplace gender harrassment. But note in addition to that:

... the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

Hmm. Let's think about that: Men take an "egalitarian approach," which might mean that men exercise decisive but fair leadership that generates a few grumbles, while women engage in catfights more vicious than anything those "evil" patriarchs could dish out. Okay. Check.

Now, let's hear if from Echidne, who just can't stand to find that, gasp!, women are oppressors:

This piece sounds to me like yet another in that long series the Times has: What Is Wrong With Working Women? These stories always create or magnify a problem and then offer anecdotal evidence on how awful the problem is.

To get to that point, the present article quickly slides by the facts: Men are more often bullies than women and if you work a little on those percentages you will find that male-on-female (heh) bullying is a larger percentage than female-on-female bullying. But never mind, we shall write about the latter! Yes.

Then we are going to pretend that all working women know the names of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem and we are also going to pretend that these feminists believed in some universal sisterhood, easily shared by all women in a society which is still based on patriarchy.

See how it works? Now we have a problem of evil women keeping other women down. To the extent this happens, might it have something to do with the musical chairs that many firms still play with women? If only a few promotion slots are available for women, and if women know this to be the case, well, they are going to compete against other women, right?

The conclusion of the article tells us that this is a problem women should fix, what with all the other problems women have to cope with (such as guys bullying them more). Those other problems or their solutions are not, however, written up in the New York Times. It's much safer to focus on what is wrong with women themselves.

Actually, Echidne misses the whole thrust of the article. No one here is saying men don't bully and harrass women. The piece notes instead that "women are taught to fight with one another for attention at an early age" and that this fact is emerging as a substantial impediment to gender equality.

Also, this is not "anecdotal" evidence. The article discusses social science research using what look likes is large "N" workplace studies using survey questionnaire methods. Thus, by definition these are not "anecdotal" findings. But like it is with black civil rights, feminists like Echidne will endlessy claim "discrimination" while folks like Carli Fiorina and Condoleezza Rice blaze a trail of leadership across the pinnacles of power in American politics, business, and academe.

P.S. See also, Robert Stacy McCain's "National Offend A Feminist Week." I'm a little late to the party, but better late than never!

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Added: See also, Fausta, who calls "bullshit": "Having attended an all-girls’ school for 11 years, and having been bullied by a woman supervisor at work, believe me when I tell you that women are as obnoxious and bullying as any ..."

Dick Cheney on "Face the Nation"

Via Flopping Aces, here's Former Vice President Dick Cheney's with Bob Schieffer yesterday:

CQ Politics has the transcript, via Memeorandum:

CHENEY: Well, Bob, first of all, it’s good to go back on the show.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

CHENEY: It’s nice to know that you’re still loved and are invited out in public sometimes.

The reason I’ve been speaking, and in effect what I’ve been doing is responding to press queries such as yours, is because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important. And, in effect, what we’ve seen happen with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11. Dealing with prisoner interrogation, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program.

They campaigned against these policies across the country, and then they came in now, and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you -- I mean, should we take that literally? You say that the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland.

CHENEY: That’s my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9/11. On the morning of 9/12, if you will, there was a great deal we didn’t know about Al Qaida. There was the need to embark upon a new strategy with respect to treating this as a strategic threat to the United States. There was the possibility of Al Qaida terrorists in the midst of one of our own cities with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.

It was a time of great concern, and we put in place some very good policies, and they worked, for eight years. Now we have an administration that’s come to power that has been critical of the programs, but not only that, there’s been talk about prosecuting the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us the opinions that we operated in accordance with, or referring them to the Bar Association for disbarment or sanctions of some kind, or possibly cooperating with foreign governments that are interested in trying to prosecute American officials, those same officials who were responsible for defending this nation for the last eight years.

That whole complex of things is what I find deeply disturbing, and I think to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it’s fair to argue -- and I do argue -- that that means in the future we’re not going to have the same safeguards we’ve had for the last eight years.

More here.

Also, Conor Friedersdorf demonstrates that Cheney derangement lives!

Nancy Pelosi, Dogged by Waterboarding Lies, Visits Iraq to Expedite Precipitous Withdrawal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi really has no business conducting foreign policy on behalf of the administration, much less her party's congressional majority. The San Francisco Democrat, who made a made a "surprise visit" to Iraq this weekend, has not one shred of credibility on decisions regarding the disposition of the American deployment. Indeed, she's been one of the leading congresssional Democrats who has literally worked for an American defeat in the conflict.

But as The Politico reports, Pelosi is in Iraq to expedite the Obama administration's policy mandating a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from the theater:

During a brief Mother's Day visit to Iraq on Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reaffirmed her commitment to ensure that the U.S. military meets its June 30 deadline for withdrawing American troops from major cities in the country, according to a release from her office.

The report indicates that Pelosi talks a big game on veterans' benefits for returning troops, but the Speaker's bald-faced lies on her waterboarding briefings in 2002 demonstrate that she's all about gaining and holding political power, not protecting the lives of American soldiers in the field, or U.S. citizens here at home.

See Captain Ed's post for the details of the dereliction of high office by the Democrats' second-in-line to the presidency, "More Confirmation That Pelosi Lied":

Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to evade responsibility for her role in approving the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques took another hit today in the Washington Post — and this time the fire comes from her side of the aisle. Pete Hoekstra upped the ante as well, demanding the release of precise minutes of Congressional briefings, and Leon Panetta has promised to make them available, at least to Capitol Hill ...

Pelosi tries but fails to latch onto Representative Jane Harmon's timeline for CIA briefings:

Pelosi’s attempt to weasel onto Harman’s objection fails when one looks at the briefing notes. Both Pelosi and Sheehy attended a briefing on September 4, 2002, five months before Harman attended her first briefing. That 9/02 briefing specifically covered EITs and their use on Abu Zubaydah. Harman raised her objection in 2003, not in 2002, as she had yet to attend one of the EIT briefings.

Captain Ed concludes:

Since Eric Holder and Barack Obama have opened the possibility of legal action against people in the loop on waterboarding and other techniques, we have seen competing leaks that give small slices of the overall picture. The act of releasing the OLC memos, while not a leak, was another politically selective act intended to give only a small part of the picture for the administration’s purposes. We need to see all of the documentation, with only the most sensitive information redacted, in order to know exactly what was done, who ordered it, who approved it, and who knew about it — and what we discovered as a result of it. Be sure to read the whole thing, especially Ed's discussion of block quotations indicati

See also, Astute Bloggers, "The Downside of Waterboarding Nancy Pelosi."

Rule 5 Rescue: Heidi Klum Mother's Day Action!

Well, it's Mother's Day. I was visiting family yesterday and was unable to work on my usual entry for Full Metal Saturday. So, what better way to make amends than with some hot "Rule 5" action featuring the lovely three-time and expecting mom, Heidi Klum:

Breaking with tradition, I'd first like to thank those who've sent me abundant traffic this week, Blazing Cat Fur, Dan Collins and Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, John Hawkins, Moe Lane, and Dan Riehl.

Let me also throw some links to a few regular commenters here as well, M Conservative Operative, Jordan at Generation Patriot and Chris Wysocki! But see Philippe in Europe too, one of my very best commenters! Check out my friend Stogie as well.

Now, back to the regular babe-blogging program!

Check out Smitty's weekend treat, "Rule 5 Sunday." Smitty leads off the roster with the post at Three Beers Later, "Frumley Brooks, Esq., Mainsteam Conservative Pundit, Inveigles Against Offend-a-Feminist Week." Further, click over to Bob's Bar & Grill's Milla Jovovich action! And TrogloPundit weighs in with some unusual Rule 5!

HotMES! is a woman for my own heart with her dynamite post on Rachel McAdams. What an inspiration! And Suzanna Logan's full of innuendo with some Mitt Romney Rule 5 goodness! And Carol at No Sheeples Here! is on the case as well! Plus, Skye's smoking with some Lady GaGa action!

Now, don't miss Pat in Shreveport's Saturday roundup either, with Steve McQueen beefcake! Pundette's been tearing it up as well, but Michelle Obama's "burnished arms"! Threatening Democratic power, I'll tell you!

Shifting gears a lot here, The Rhetorican gives you Brokeback Star Trek! Oh, the passion! Who knew! And no doubt RepsacRomulan3 wants in on the action! And JBW too! No wonder the American Nihilists love Obama so much!

Well, let's wrap it up here to some friends I just found on the net. Say hello to The Pajama Underground and The Right Guy! No let's see some Rule 5 action fellas!

Please e-mail with your links if I've missed your blog!

Until next week!

Grassroots Conservatives Must Rise Up

This morning's Los Angeles Times features a colloquium on conservatism, "SOS for the GOP." Not much here is really new. We find the same-old "progressive conservatism" in Morley Winograd and Michael Hais', "The Republican Party ignores young 'millennials' at its peril." And "moderate" Mickey Edward argues against the Goldwater legacy in "The nation needs a better GOP."

This is the kind of thing that only time and elections will resolve. I'm simply more inclined to agree with Richard Viguerie and his contribution to the collection, "What Republicans need is a mutiny":

The current GOP leadership has no message or vision that appeals to the grass roots. We never hear from them the boat-rocking message of successful conservatives.

Instead, the public's image of the GOP is that it is incompetent (think Hurricane Katrina), corrupt (think Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, etc.) and without principles (think wild spending, bailouts, earmarks and a lack of a true conservative vision). Republicans can try smoke and mirrors, but they really need new leaders who will reverse the big-government policies of Bush 43 and congressional Republicans and articulate and move a conservative agenda forward.

Democrats have nothing to fear from today's Republican Party leaders. That's why Democrats have taken to targeting Rush Limbaugh and others who aren't in formal leadership positions in the GOP but who forcefully articulate a conservative vision.

Republicans need the political equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous. First, they must admit their problem (many are in denial). Next, they must promise never to do it again. Then they must recognize what caused the problem ("Washingtonitis," abandoning the principles of the party and allowing people who didn't believe in the principles of the party to assume leadership positions). Last, when in a hole, stop digging.

Instead, Republicans are still digging. The GOP has lost the Goldwater/Reagan vision of rolling back unconstitutional government and restoring it to its prescribed authority. Its leaders seem barely capable of fighting for basic GOP principles of low taxes, a strong national defense and traditional values.

The American people have said clearly in the last two national elections that they don't like the GOP of Bush, Karl Rove, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, etc. All the rebranding efforts and pandering tours won't work as long as the party remains under the leadership of the team that was a party-wrecking disaster on the order of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

In the 2008 election, Republicans acquiesced to the Specter/Colin Powell wing and nominated the one member of their party most famously critical of conservatives and most open to partnerships with people from across the aisle, John McCain. That obviously didn't work.

For Republicans to remove the stigma of Bush 43 and his GOP Congress, they must be able to honestly communicate to Americans that they are "Open Under New Management" -- but with old, time-tested principles.

The second debate is whether conservatives should tone down on social issues such as abortion and marriage.

Those, however, who win without principle have neither an agenda nor a mandate and rarely change anything for the better. In the history books, centrists and accommodators end up alongside James Buchanan, who compromised with slavery, and Neville Chamberlain, who compromised with Nazism. Political leaders we respect are ones who changed political reality, not those who accommodated themselves to political reality.

Leftist activists on social issues not only advocate loudly, even threateningly, they are happy to achieve their objectives through unconstitutional methods such as judicial activism.

Certainly, conservatives need to appeal not just to the faithful but must use logical and constitutional rationales on social issues. But stay quiet? I think not. What would have become of the great social and political debates of our country -- slavery, segregation, suffrage -- had activists acquiesced to the political establishment?

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

The political establishment is averse to conservative boat-rockers, which is why conservatives should withhold financial support from all GOP national committees and establishment politicians but support principled organizations and candidates. They should run candidates for every party and public office except when there's a principled incumbent conservative.

Conservatives should no longer look to Republican politicians for leadership and should assume the role of leading the opposition to Obama and the Democrats. We believe we have a party and a country to save, and the GOP establishment is in our way. Let the rebellion begin.

See also, Fred Barnes, "Be the Party of No: It's the Route to Republican Landslides" (via Memeorandum).

Blog Watch: Sadly No!

It's been over a year since I updated my "Blog Watch" series. I previously covered Lawyers, Guns and Money and Digby's Hullabaloo, although I quit writing "Blog Watch" when other projects became more interesting. But who knows? Maybe I'll restart the series now as a regular feature. Lord knows there's plenty of material across the netroots fever swamps.

When I started the series I noted my interest in "dissecting and challenging radical, antiwar bloggers." I'd expand the criteria now to include the plain old nihilism we see all around.

Which brings me to Sadly No!, one of the most predictably stupid blogs on the web.

I thought about Sadly No! when R. Stanton Scott starting trolling around at my eminently popular post this weekend, "Mainstream Bigotry and Racism on the Democratic-Left." That entry brought out all the lefty airheads, and Sadly No! linked with an unintelligible post, "Creep Learning Curve," which includes this line: "Larry Elder! Thomas Sowell! Bill Cosby! Star Parker! Does the Left have an equivalent roster of genuine African-American scolds who so tirelessly browbeat blacks as a class with such naked relish?"

Browbeaten? As you can see, that's what (black) conservatives get when they actually have the temerity to talk about, gasp!, personal responsibility!

Well it turns out that Sadly No! spends a good amount of time doing "brilliant" satire against black conservatives, as is abundantly clear in the exquisitely tasteful Photoshop above, available at "The Awful Rowing Toward Godwin." The reference is to "Godwin's Law," which admonishes against Hitler comparisons. Sowell's essay this week suggests we compare our smooth talking Obamessiah with another great orator from the interwar period. It's not an unreasonable comparison, although Sadly No! takes exception. Ain't that Photoshop just dandy? William Buckly in the crapper? And there's Thomas Sowell as "Uncle Ben the Janitor" opening up the lid no doubt with some "whitening" scouring powder to de-Nazify that commode.

I've been linked up at Sadly No! plenty of times. Those satirical intellectual giants "scour" the Internet for posts and pics of the conservative blogger du jour, and viola! Snark City Rollers! You name 'em: Pamela Geller. Rick Moran. Betsy Newmark. John Hinderaker. Beware, nobody - I mean nobody! - escapes the crack investigative skills of the Cruising Clouseau Clowns of the web!

Even my friend Mary Grabar came in for a drubbing.

While exchanging e-mails, Mary suggested to me, "Yeah, those idiots know how to use Photoshop, but not much else."

But hey, c'mon, these guys are good! Look at William Buckley up there! He needs hims some scourin' powda' up on dem 'dere teeth, nah. The Dem'crats' Little Black Sambo puts 'eem to shame!

Oh, wait! I almost forgot! Leftists are the paragons of racial propriety! It's really the Republithugs who can't, for the life of them, scrape the stain of Lee Atwater from their hands! That's right! Only the "evil" conservatives could have the, er, balls to market Barack Obama presidential dildos! You see, those "malevolent" GOPers have no values whatsover. Totally bereft of human decency - they expect people to work, aahhhh!!!

With Recession Easing, Obama Will Keep Spending Anyway

Remember how "bad" the economy was when Barack Obama took office, on the scale of the Great Depression we kept hearing. All the economic fear-mongering was deployed to launch the biggest Democratic spending binge in American history. Well, as the Washington Post reports, with the recession "bottoming out" (and along with it the worst economic "catastrophe" in history), the administration will keep "stimulating" the economy anyway:

The Obama administration still plans to spend tens of billions of dollars reviving the nation's financial system, even after the government's unexpected finding that major banks need only a little bit more direct government aid.

The initiatives being crafted include helping municipalities borrow money, providing insurers with new capital and after a long delay buying troubled assets from financial firms. Senior officials see signs that the recession may be bottoming out, but they say they continue to think big actions are necessary to spark an economic revival.

Officials overseeing the federal bailout suddenly find themselves flush with cash, just months after saying they might run out. Rather than needing to spend what remains in the bailout to shore up weak banks, some government officials say they now expect the healthy ones to return well more than $35 billion. That would give the Treasury Department at least $145 billion for other initiatives.

Actually, with the goverment "flush" with cash, perhaps now might be a time to send out tax rebates, which at least puts money in the hands of workers themselves, rather that strengthen the Democratic Party's big-spending agenda.

But nope, as Fox News reports, "Obama to Propose More Taxes From Estates, Firms to Fund Health Care Reform" (via Memeorandum).

God, give us a few drunken sailors any day over this mess!

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Late to the Party-- Some Rich Obama Supporters Realize He's a Class Warrior."

Radical Teaching

My essay, "Grading the One-Party Classroom," has been published at FrontPage Magazine.

See also Charlotte Allen at this week's Weekly Standard, "'Why Can't a Girl Have a Penis?': And Other Major Issues in Educational Research":

There he was, Bill Ayers himself, sitting in a Marriott conference room waiting to partake in a session of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). The former Weatherman, "unapologetic" (his own word) fugitive from justice, and hot potato of the far left whose acquaintance with Barack Obama in Chicago during the 1990s and unrepentant boasting about Weatherman bombings at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol in the 1970s, prompted the Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists"--and the University of Nebraska to cancel a planned speech by Ayers last October.

No matter: Plenty of other colleges have been happy to have Ayers at their podia in light of his Obama connection and the attention-getting frisson of notoriety that he brings with him wherever he goes. Ayers is now a "distinguished" professor in the education school at the University of Illinois-Chicago and the author of numerous manifestoes and memoirs (his most recent, coauthored with his equally radical wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a law professor at Northwestern University, is Race Course: Against White Supremacy), and he is something of an AERA celebrity these days, having been elected vice president of its curriculum-studies division--which specializes in research on what teachers teach, both at the ed-school level and in the K-12 classrooms where most ed-school graduates find employment. He participated in no fewer than seven panels and events at this year's convention. AERA, by the way, with 25,000 members, is the leading scholarly organization for professors at U.S. education schools--the people who teach the teachers who teach your children. Its annual meeting drew nearly 14,000 people to the San Diego Convention Center in April.

Even at 64, and getting long in the revolutionary tooth, Ayers didn't look too different from the way he looked nearly 40 years ago in his "Wanted" poster (for involvement in bombings, although the charges were eventually dropped on grounds of improper FBI surveillance)--as long as you mentally corrected for his over-the-dome-receded hair, which is still youthfully unkempt. His AERA ensemble consisted of a rumpled black jacket and hipster T-shirt, Sixties-tastic bell-bottom jeans, a silver ring circling the lobe of each ear, elaborately quilted Mos Def party-ready high-top sneakers, and, most significantly, a rainbow armband (in Ayers's case dangling out of a pocket) that signaled solidarity with the gay and lesbian activists who opposed the passage in November of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage. At this particular session, titled "Public Pedagogy and Social Action: Examinations and Portraits," Ayers was chairman of the panel.

Read the whole thing at the link.

See also, Radical Teacher, "Introduction: Radical Teaching Now":

One of our most central (and most obvious) beliefs is that teaching is always political. This is true not only because political conditions impact our classrooms, and because ideas and abilities learned in school have political weight, but also because we think all teachers have a moral obligation to level the playing field. It follows from this that they should work to expose power and to challenge, rather than support or ignore, the assumptions and inequities perpetuated by the dominant culture in favor of a narrow and privileged portion of society. And further, educators, partly by the model of their own activism, should teach students to become agents who can engage the systemic social problems that shape their lives. These basic principles and the ideas and controversies that flow from them are reflected in the Forum you will find in this issue.

Teachers working to overthrow systems of "oppression"?

No doubt voters love their taxpayers contributions going to that ...

Related: Phyllis Schlafly, "Radical 'Social Justice' Teaching Being Pushed on Our Schools."

Energetic and Loyal Conservatives

Mike Huckabee's a man for my own heart. As CNN reports, the Huck has laid down the gauntlet to "progressive Republicans":

In an interview with the California newspaper The Visalia Times-Delta, Huckabee said the GOP would only further decline in influence should it alienate social conservatives — largely considered the most energetic and loyal faction of the party.

"Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs," he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s.

"They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party," he said in the interview published Thursday.

Of course, this has the nihilist lefties giddy to no end. For example, here's Ron Beasley at the pro-terror Newshoggers, "Sorry Mike, hate based Christianity is not the road to salvation for the Republican Party.

That's the slur, of course, if you're not pro-abortion, pro-gay licentiousness, and pro-open borders.

As always, it's a smear and it dead wrong. Recall Gary Andres' argument from the other day, "Republicans did not lose the 2008 election because they were out of step ideologically with average Americans."

But the leftists don't want you to know that, naturally, so they'll excoriate conservatives as "evil" in order to ram down their tyrannical agenda on the huge block of voters in the middle.

Santa Barbara's Jesusita Fire

Be sure to check today's Los Angeles Times for the coverage of Santa Barbara's Jesusita fire, at the following article and elsewhere, "In Santa Barbara, a Raging Line of Flames and Smoke" (via Memeorandum):

Fire in the Sky: Flames from the Jesusita blaze threaten a home in Santa Barbara's Mission Canyon late Thursday. Fire officials upped their estimate of the burned acreage from 3,500 to 8,600 and put the number of homes damaged or destroyed at 80. Firefighters waited to see if the area's notorious sundowner winds would carry the flames down the mountain.

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times, "Wind-Driven Blaze in Santa Barbara."

Sonia Sotomayor: The Next Token Justice?

Well, speaking of "tokenism," here's John Perazzo essay on the speculation surrounding Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court: "The Next Token Justice?":

With David Souter set to retire from the Supreme Court next month, there is much speculation that Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, ranks at the top of Barack Obama’s list of replacements. Considering President Obama’s stated preference for selecting a minority candidate who “understand[s] what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old,” Sotomayor – a Latina from a Bronx housing project – may be a frontrunner for the nomination. This fact should trouble those who believe a Justice’s principal qualification for the country’s highest court should be his or her ability to interpret the Constitution accurately.

Sotomayor considers her ethnicity of paramount importance, as well. She began consciously developing a sense of her ethnic identity as a young woman and has allowed identity politics to act as a lens through which she sees her jurisprudence. During her student years at Princeton University in the 1970s, Sotomayor became actively involved in two campus organizations devoted chiefly to the celebration of an ethnicity distinct from that of the white majority. She reminisces: “The Puerto Rican group on campus, Accion Puertorriquena, and the Third World Center provided me with an anchor I needed to ground myself in that new and different world.”

The self-described goal of Acción Puertorriqueña (AP), which remains active, is to “unite Puerto Rican and Latino students both in the University and in the greater community and promote our culture.” But in practice, this means supporting increased rights and privileges for illegal aliens. In 1994, AP lobbied against Proposition 187, the ballot initiative designed to deny social-welfare benefits to illegal immigrants in California. Nine years later, AP sponsored an event focusing on the societal “inequality” that allegedly persisted in suppressing Latinos’ “access to higher education...throughout our nation.”

The other group to which Sotomayor belonged, Princeton’s Third World Center (TWC), was established in 1971 “to provide a social, cultural and political environment that reflects the needs and concerns of students of color at the University.” A 1978 Princeton publication explained that the TWC had arisen chiefly to address the fact that “the University’s cultural and social organizations have largely been shaped by students from families nurtured in the Anglo-American and European traditions,” and that consequently “it has not always been easy for students from different backgrounds to enter the mainstream of campus life.”

Thus indoctrinated, Sotomayor states that even though she holds one of the highest positions in her profession and is being considered for a lifelong appointment where her opinions would become precedent for the entire legal profession, she has never shed her sense of being an outsider looking in on American society:

The differences from the larger society and the problems I faced as a Latina woman didn’t disappear when I left Princeton. I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of any of the worlds I inhabit…. As accomplished as I have been in my professional settings, I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up and am always concerned that I have to work harder to succeed.

Sotomayor describes Latinos as one of America’s “economically deprived populations” which, like “all minority and women’s groups,” are filled with people “who don’t make it in our society at all.” Attributing those failures to inequities inherent in American society, she affirms her commitment to “serving the underprivileged of our society” by promoting Affirmative Action and other policies designed to help those who “face enormous challenges.”

Hmm, a Latina "quota queen." We've been down that road before.

Photo Credit: FrontPage Magazine.

Obama and Terrorism: Unswift and Uncertain Justice

From Debra Burlingame's essay yesterday, at the Wall Street Journal:

In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.

The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.

On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.

Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.

Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."

How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."

There's more at the link.

The more we see of how President Obama "governs," the more the right's warnings against the prove accurate.

Don't Abandon Me, Mr. President!!

Via Betsy Newmark and Mary Katharine Ham, check out these photos from this week's Washington Freedom Plaza rally for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program:

Here's the caption to the second photo above, "'If you give up our scholarship, you will give up our dreams,' reads the sign of Iyanna Wofford, 8, a third-grader at Ambassador Baptist Church Christian School."

Adds Betsy:

So we have proven results, happy students and parents, and saving money. What to do with such a program? Well, the Democrats want to close it down. Can't have a vouchers program showing success right there in the nation's capital. That might ruin the whole argument of the teachers unions against anything that allows children to escape the regular public schools when those schools are failing so miserably.

The Left's Racist Double Standard on Souter/Thomas - UPDATED!

I wanted to share this New York Times piece with readers: "Souter’s Exit Opens Door for a More Influential Justice."

Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring in June, during his confirmation hearings in 1990.

It turns out that Justice David Souter leaves a middling record on the Supreme Court. In fact, Court-watchers are welcoming his replacement as a chance to appoint a larger personality on the court:

In replacing Justice Souter, President Obama will almost surely pick another liberal. But Mr. Obama may also consider Justice Souter as a kind of counterexample and choose a bigger and bolder figure, one who sets agendas, forges consensus and has a long-term vision about how to shape the law.

Legal scholars have praised Justice Souter’s care, candor and curiosity. But they have said that he is, by temperament and design, a low-impact justice devoted to deciding one case at a time, sifting through the facts and making incremental adjustments in legal doctrine to take account of them.

Other justices have had more impact, gaining influence through personal and intellectual persuasion.

It's amazing how Souter, a Republican appointee, has been spared the diabolical lynchmob attacks that Justice Clarence Thomas endured over the years. Both justices were appointed by George H.W. Bush. But Thomas is a black conservative. He's never been accorded even a shred of decency by the same kind of bigoted leftists who today look the other way when President Barack Obama guts the successful D.C. school voucher program (a program providing a chance for black kids to get a good education).

Justice Thomas released his autobiography in 2007, My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. ABC News ran an interview with him at the time. Note how Thomas eviscerates his racist Democratic attackers:

"People get bent out of shape about the fact that when I was a kid, you could not drink out of certain water fountains. Well, the water was the same. My grandfather always said that, 'The water's exactly the same.' But those same people are extremely comfortable saying I can't drink from this fountain of knowledge," Thomas says. "They certainly don't see themselves as being like the bigots in the South. Well, I've lived both experiences. And I really don't see that they're any different from them" ....

Thomas spoke at length about how his own experiences as a black conservative and a black justice prove his point. Because he was admitted to Yale Law School under affirmative action after graduating with honors from Holy Cross, he said people have questioned his qualifications and discounted his achievements. Even as a Justice, he says, people continue to believe he merely has "followed" Justice Scalia because a black man couldn't possibly hold those views or be smart enough to come up with them on his own.

"Give me a break. I mean this is part of the, you know, the black guy is supposed to follow somebody white. We know that," Thomas says. "Come on, we know the story behind that. I mean there's no need to sort of tip-toe around that. The story line was that, well I couldn't be doing this myself, he must be doing it for me because I'm black. That's obvious.

"Again, I go back to my point. Who were the real bigots? It's obvious," Thomas says [emphasis added].

The real bigots are the Democratic leftists who've given David Souter - who's scholarly but undistinguished - a free ride, while subjecting the formidable Justice Thomas to a 20-year lynching that only the left can give.

**********

UPDATE: See also, Michelle Malkin, "Smearing Jeff Sessions":

As we learned during the Clarence Thomas hearings, character assassination is the stock and trade of Democrats in the SCOTUS wars. Refresh your memories of how outrageously Ted Kennedy and companytried to beat Justice Alito over the head with the race card. Kennedy then attempted to paint Alito as hostile to women, while maintaining a membership at a club that bans women from membership. They have no shame.

Read the whole thing, here.

**********

UPDATE II: See Joseph Klein, "The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas":

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been a punching bag for the Left ever since his bruising confirmation hearings. Failing to derail his nomination with Anita Hill’s ambush of unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges, the Left has attacked Thomas ever since on everything from betraying his race to being a right-wing ideologue in the shadow of Justice Scalia. I have always thought that he was unfairly maligned during his confirmation hearings and that he has been given short shrift as an independent jurist who takes his constitutional responsibilities to interpret - not invent - the law seriously.

Now comes along a book that should make every one of Justice Thomas’s Leftist critics immediately apologize for their lies about him (which, no doubt, they are too cowardly and intellectually dishonest to do): The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative’s Perspective by Henry Mark Holzer. Mr. Holzer has written the definitive rebuke to Clarence Thomas’s detractors in the media, academia and the political elite. In doing so, he also provides an excellent survey of the history and current landscape of constitutional law for anyone generally interested in this subject.

Louis Caldera Under the Bus!

I'm going with Jeff Goldstein's take on Louis Caldera's resignation as the Obama administration's Director of the White House Military Office, "Under the Bus": "Why, it’s almost as if one could find a theme emerging with this President ..."

But check out Michelle Malkin as well:

Here’s the official review of the incident. It does not cover DoD or FAA involvement. The report says “Initial planning” began in “March 2009 or earlier” without specifying who exactly initiated the planning and why. Caldera blames “severe back muscle spasms” and his recent return from a trip to Mexico for his failure to read e-mail concerning the mission. Also: He had a grand total of two email accounts. You can’t expect a crony paper-pusher to keep track of all that!

The White House report blamed “organizational” and “structural ambiguities” for the crony paper-pusher’s incompetence.

The White House also released a photo. Your tax dollars at work.

See also, Top of the Ticket, "White House aide out after $357,012 photo-op with Air Force One," via Memeorandum.

Mainstream Bigotry and Racism on the Democratic-Left

I've long documented the most vile bigotry and racism on the left end of the dial. During the 2008 primaries, we witnessed some of the most disgusting racism and sexism in decades. And across the blogosphere, the most reprehensible racial slurs and bigoted attacks on conservatives are considered fair game, penetrating social "commentary," and biting "satire."

Take TBogg's post yesterday, for example, and his Sambo logo above.

If any conservative blogger or columnist were to post a black Sambo eating a watermelon the entire netroots would erupt in feigned outrage at the modern day lynching. But it's standard operating procedure on the left. Michael Steele was attacked as Sambo himself. And recall Jane Hamsher's blackface attack on Senator Joseph Lieberman. And via Memeorandum, Roy Erdoso's literally got a post up this morning entitled "Black Comedy," calling out Red State's outstanding post which hammers President Barack Obama's shameful hypocrisy and malign neglect for black kids in D.C.'s school voucher program.

The truth is that leftists don't care about the advancement of minorities, they care about the advancement of their own power.

Remember the hardline radical street protests against Proposition 8 last November? They were largely organized by a white gay elite that systematically denigrates and repudiates the political and social programs of poor inner-city blacks. And on the street, blacks were attacked with racial epithets, and statewide the black community was excoriated for joining forces with the "evil" Mormon sponsors of the initiative.

And don't forget the recent smears of bigotry and racism against patriotic Americans who marched by the hundreds of thousands on April 15th to protest Democratic spending and taxing programs. In a representative slur, Janeane Garofalo attacked traditional Americans as "racist rednecks."

But, of course, the nihilists endlessly deny leftist bigotry and intolerance, for example, at my Garofalo post, where Repsac3 suggested that "No single individual is representative of the whole group." So true, that's why you have to link around to show just how common leftist bigotgry is today. What we find is that genuine, widespread, and MAINSTREAM bigotry in contemporary American politics is on the radical left end of the spectrum. See more of this at American Nihilist, "Impending Arrival of BlackState."

Note too yesterday's leftist bigotry in Matthew Yglesias' slur against heterosexuals as "breeders." In response, Yglesias demonstrates his pure hypocrisy by attacking those who dare raise the question of his bigotry as "the humorless right."

So it's just barrel of laughs for those on the collectivist left. Posting Sambo logos to attack conservative arguments against Democratic anti-opportunity policies is just "humor." That's right, it's just fun and games when Keith Olbermann gives huzzahs and high-fives in support of Janeane Garofalo's disgusting racism (see "Olby and Garofalo salute Michael Steele’s racial “self-loathing”").

And of course I'd be remiss not to include Daily Kos in this roundup, where we can still find the rabidly anti-Semitic essay, "Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

Don't forget that Kos and his friends on the bigoted left are "the mainstream of Democratic Party."

No wonder Senator Lindsay Graham exclaimed this week that "if we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Moving to Center is GOP's Prescription for Failure

One of the reasons I dislike the agenda of "progressive Rebublicans" so much is because current Democratic power in Washington is mostly "of the moment." Americans demonstrated Bush-fatigue by the end of 2008. Partly due to the fading urgency of September 11, but also weariness from the costly price of defending against radical Islam, Barack Obama was able to combine demands for change with an undeniable charisma to win the presidency.

Still, what we saw was a classic short-term swing to the party out of power. The Democratic victory fell well short of a long-lasting partisan realignment in the electorate. As I've noted many times here, Republicans may very well be consigned to a couple of electoral cycles in the minority. The party will work on reorganization and rejuvenation, while the Democrats build a record of big government overreach. Thus, to hear people like David Frum, Meghan McCain, Christine Whitman, and now Colin Powell argue that GOP needs to "move to the center" and compromise bedrock conservative principles makes little sense. The chatter among these "establishment" Republicans simply feeds into the Democratic meme that leftist philosophy forms the natural ideological framework for the coming decade of 21st century politics.

Thus I got kick out of Gary Andres' new piece at the Weekly Standard, "The Center-Right Trap: The Limits of Ideology in Politics."

Citing political scientist James Stimson and data from the American National Election Studies, Andres notes that "Republicans did not lose the 2008 election because they were out of step ideologically with average Americans." The argument, based on solid research, which won't make (empirically-minded) folks on the left very happy (like Chris Bowers and David Sirota). The key theme Andres stresses is that most Americans are mostly non-ideological in orientation, and the key goal for each party is to consolidate the hardline activists at the base while expanding appeal to the roughly 20 percent or so of the electorate who make "electoral decisions based on criteria other than just ideology":

The way to victory for both parties seems pretty clear. It's about winning on the margin and realizing Americans are not homogeneous in the way they conceptualize politics. So the key is to retain and mobilize those who agree and think ideologically, and persuade enough of the rest. But who are those people? Here again Stimson has an interesting take. He calls them the "scorekeepers." He doesn't conjecture about the exact size of the group, but it's probably 20 percent of voters--clearly enough to swing any election. They don't ask if a politician's or party's views are "correct." They ask, "Will they do a good job?"

These are the voters Republicans lost in droves in the last two cycles. Thinking that winning them back means simply "moving to the center" is a prescription for more electoral failure.

So tell that to the next pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, or pro-amnesty Republican who tells you that the GOP is too conservative.

Terrorists Should Be Given Same "Due Process" as American Troops

Here's Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff suggesting moral and legal equivalence between Islamic terrorists and U.S. soldiers:

Note Schiff's statement comes at the same time that congressional Republicans are being attacked for their bill, the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act."

As Michael Goldfarb notes, "It's a great name for a bill, and it will make great fodder for 2010 campaign ads - who wants to be the guy who voted against keeping terrorists out of America?"

Suspected Wesleyan Killer Threatened Jewish Students

From CNN, "Wesleyan shooting suspect threatened Jewish students." This picture is especially menacing, and the Jewish angle disturbing. I'm also interested in campus violence generally, as I have a hunch that most schools remain unprepared for major violence in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre:

A man suspected of killing a Wesleyan University junior may be targeting the university and its Jewish population, Middletown, Connecticut, police said Thursday.

Police have launched a nationwide search for Stephen Morgan, 29, who is suspected of killing Johanna Justin-Jinich.

The young woman was shot and killed Wednesday at a bookstore in Middletown near the Wesleyan campus, police said.

"Evidence uncovered overnight suggests that Mr. Morgan may be focused on the Wesleyan community campus as well as the Jewish community," said Middletown Police Chief Lynn Baldoni, who did not elaborate.

A statement from the university alleges that Morgan had written threats against "Wesleyan and/or its Jewish students."

While Justin-Jinich is a student at Wesleyan and is Jewish, there was another connection between her and her alleged killer, authorities said.

In July 2007, Justin-Jinich filed a harassment complaint against Morgan while the two were both taking the same six-week summer course at New York University, NYU spokesman John Beckman told CNN.

The complaint, in which Justin-Jinich said she was receiving harassing e-mails and phone calls from Morgan, was filed with the university's public safety department toward the end of the course, Beckman said.

The public safety department brought in the New York Police Department, and after conversations with Morgan and Justin-Jinich, she declined to follow up or press charges, Beckman said.

Note: CNN has changed this story to "Sister urges Wesleyan shooting suspect to surrender." The blockquote above is from the original version.

Follow Up to Gay Agenda: Polyamory? - UPDATED!

Check out Abby Ellin's story on "Threesome Marriages" (via Memeorandum):

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England, to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker." In a triad, there would be no doubt in Elizabeth Edwards’ mind whether her husband fathered a baby out of wedlock; she likely would have participated in it.

Before folks attack this post as "out there" or polyamory as "fringe," don't forget my earlier post, "From Gay Marriage to Polygamy."

**********

UPDATE: Check out also, Fausta's Blog, "Polyamory: What are you, nuts??"