Gateway Pundit has more, "Pro-Life Protester Shot & Killed in Michigan in Apparent Hate Crime-- Waiting For Obama Announcement."
And at Michigan Live, "Anti-Abortion Activist Shot In Front of Owosso High School." (Via Memeorandum.)
Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education - from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Gateway Pundit has more, "Pro-Life Protester Shot & Killed in Michigan in Apparent Hate Crime-- Waiting For Obama Announcement."
Especially pay attention to the Maddow's question to Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell at 4:20 minutes: "What's the connection between disrupting the president during his speech about healthcare and the day after 9/11?" Professor Lacewell's response is typically despicable, that the healthcare crisis, like September 11, is "similarly facing down our country," and it's a time to be "supporting our president regardless of ideology."
5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)The numbers are striking. Bill O'Reilly often boasts on air about Fox's ratings dominance, but the data flash on screen so quickly that one might miss the significance of Fox's pummeling of the competition.
Glenn Beck– 2,610,000 viewers (704,000) (1,140,000)
Situation Room—761,000 viewers (143,000) (255,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews —548,000 viewers (142,000) (267,000)
Fast Money—151,000 viewers (a scratch w/32,000) (70,000)
Prime News–237,000 viewers (75,000) (100,000)
Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.Whoa! That's crack analysis! You think Beck really wants to derail Obama's progressive agenda? I'm shocked!
But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.
There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform. But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling. To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show, including six new companies announced yesterday -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. These aren't liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck's distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don't want their brands associated with Glenn Beck's extremism. The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.These numbers are being touted on the left as some kind of powerhouse indicator of progressive influence to shape the structure of cable news advertising. But the fact remains, not even the most socially progressive business concern will long forego a lucative advertising market. Glenn Beck's program is sheer dominance. And contrary to Firedoglake's fantasy that Beck's heading over to the "permanent fringe," the reality is that Van Jones' resignation was a major defeat for the administration; and with Congress back in session, political conflict is swinging back to full battle-stations mode. I'm betting Beck's numbers get even better as things move forward. Just today Obama-flunky Yosi Sergent was removed as communications director at the National Endowment of the Arts, and this is being chalked up as another win for Glenn Beck.
The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it's so important to keep the heat on. Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing. But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe. Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation?
For the last two years Johnson has been like the crazy old man who tries to alienate his family, but in his case he has been throwing bloggers out of his site. For some of them like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer he not only cast them asunder, but he has continued to attack them.Check the whole thing, here. It turns out that Robert Spencer has a new post up just hammering Johnson in what's the latest, but certainly decisive, offensive in the ongoing anti-jihad blogger wars. See Spencer's post here: "Libelblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs Digs Deeper, Adding New Lies to His Original Ones."
The sad part of it is that he used to be a blogging giant, and when it comes to traffic, I am sure he still is. But with the growing list of people that he has banned from his site for the simple reason of disagreeing with his opinions or maintaining friendships with people he didn't like, Charles is losing the respect of much of the community.
One must step back and wonder: what is this man's game? Why would he make up lies, see them refuted by people who were present at the events he claims to know about, and then instead of backing down or at least falling silent, pile more lies upon his original ones? Inevitable questions arise about why he has embarked on this desperate smear campaign, intent on demonstrating that I and others are "fascists" or "fascist sympathizers," without a shred of actual evidence that I sympathize with or agree with any positions that are fascist, racist, etc., associate with any people who really are those things, or hold any positions other than the ones I have publicly avowedSpencer provides personal testimony from folks who ultimately destroy Johnson's credibility, so be sure to check the post. But I love this concluding flourish:
He's a conscience-free smear merchant, a thuggish paranoid and a liar, but at least Charles Johnson is good for a few laughs.I've actually been meaning to write something about recent flame war between Ace of Spades HQ and Johnson's Little Green Footballs. See AOSHQ, "And There You Go: Charles Johnson Spins for Van Jones," and "White House Politely Declines to Express Support in Van "Astronaut" Jones ... Bonus: Charles Johnson's Dan Rather Moment."
Also, The Swamp reports that GOP Rep. John Shimkus walked out on the speech. The dude bailed with just a couple of minutes left. It's disrespectful, sure. But given the general consensus on how brutally partisan was Obama's speech, I don't blame the guy. Decorum's not what it's all cracked up to be when you're supposed to be showing deference to a habitual liar.
What we learned in the last month is that people who have been energetically organizing, filling town halls and high-school gymnasiums, and staging protests for most of their lives are more than a little dismayed to find out that the other side can do it, too. There will always be a risk of unrest at any political protest, left or right, and that risk increases with the emotion and energy surrounding the debate. And it will always be important to call for civility in heated debates, and to treat public forums and our right to speak in them with the respect they deserve.Read the whole thing, here.
Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Office on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor. While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a "myth," the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn't require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:Plus, check William Jacobson's report, "The House Bill Does Cover Illegals."
Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
Also at Political Indoctrination & Dismantling Liberalism, "Obamas ACORN Pimps Black girls."
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.More at the link and Memeorandum.
Actually, the whole speech is clever. He’s trying to re-brand himself as the great compromiser, and everyone else as partisan. And, as I predicted earlier, he’s emphasizing the good things about the plan and not answering any the criticisms in any detail or substance. If you believe he’s an honest broker and telling the truth, it sounds great—who wouldn’t be for affordable and better health care for all? He’s banking on the fact that many people still want to like him and are disposed to believe him, as well as the economic ignorance of most Americans.Also, from Dan Collins, "Obama’s Health Care Speech, Condensed":
People who say bad things about my health care plan are liars and dreadful human beings. There needs to be more civility in this discussion. Bush caused 9-11. People who say bad things about my health care plan are trying to scare people, and everybody’s going to die if we don’t get this thing passed now.Added: Gateway Pundit, "Congressman Yells "Liar" as Obama Spews Talking Points to Congress (Video)."
Representative Charles Boustany of Louisiana, a surgeon, has delivered a brief Republican response. He has the same problem typical of those who deliver such responses (and not, in his case, just relative anonymity) — he is standing by himself somewhere, without the animation that comes from interacting with a live audience ...
I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it's the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearned for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn't picky in this regard). This is the argument for an "economic dictatorship" pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It's the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.The whole thing is at the link.
The only thing I’d add to Friedman’s analysis is ... that it is a little inaccurate to describe the Democratic Party as singular or unified in any ideological sense. In reality, or at least as far as congressional Democrats are concerned, the Democratic Party is more of a loose coalition between a broadly center-left party (based in the Northeast and the West Coast) and a broadly center-right party (based in the Rust Belt, and rural areas throughout the West, Midwest, and the South). For liberals, this isn’t particularly good. Under a functional legislative system, where majority rule was given deference, this wouldn’t pose too much of a problem; the center-left party could rely on the center-right party to help craft and pass broadly acceptable legislation (while the right-wing party languished in irrelevance). The way it stands however, the right-wing party has pretty significant veto power over nearly every piece of legislation, which effectively means that any given piece of progressive legislation has to go through two conservative filters.For those in the know, the Westminster model is often referred as an "elective dictatorship." The prime minister is drawn from the majority in the Commons, and the party in power can fall on a vote of no confidence. There's really no incentive for MPs to pull down the government, however, since that means that they'll have to go before the voters in a new election. Sure, it's a long way from Westminster to an authoritarian one-party regime. But what's interesting in Jamelle's case is the outright hostility to American constitutionalism. A solid reading of James Madison or the Federalist Papers indicates that the structure of American political insitutions works to prevent tyranny. To do away with the presidential model is revolutionary AND authoritarian. No serious analyst makes such proposals. And this mention of abolishing the filibuster is more hostility to the protection of minority rights. Leftists just don't care about democratic safeguards - they're all about power, the more demonic the better. Jamelle's piece is a good indicator of just how whacked are the folks at Ordinary Gentleman. The rank attacks on conservatives we see over there, including Sarah Palin, reveal not only a total alienation from genuine heartland values, but a mean-spiritedness that's inherent to leftists politics.
To take it back to Friedman’s point though, the fact of our tri-party legislature acts as yet another obstacle to one-party governing, since there simply isn’t enough ideological cohesion and group loyalty within the Democratic Party to pass anything approaching ambitious legislation. The real solution, of course, is a complete restructuring of our legislature into something approaching a Westminster-style parliamentary system, with multiple member districts and executive branch drawn largely from the legislature. However, since that is also incredibly unlikely, we’ll probably have to look for other ways to make Congress more responsive to the majority party (like eliminating the filibuster, or revamping the committee system!).
The lesson the war supporters have learned from all of this is that the Rules Of Engagement suck ....Readers may recall that Newshoggers backed "the resistance" in Iraq, and literally cheered al Qaeda's use of mentally-impaired female suicide bombers as a "brilliant" strategic adaptation against American forces.
For the few who still remember Vietnam this should sound very familiar. Once you got out of the major cities in Vietnam the war wasn't about communism VS western capitalism it was about occupation by foreign troops. They supported the Viet Cong because they saw them as freedom fighters.
The lesson should be that we are in another quagmire - fighting another war that can't be won without killing most of the population.
Then, compare that rant to now-departed "green jobs czar" Van Jones' comments on American imperialism, "Obama 'Czar' on 9/11: Blame 'U.S. Imperialism'! White House 'Rowdy Communist' Held Vigil for Muslims."
The city's already spending $4 billion on infrastructure repairs to the area's underground pipe system, but soon enough we'll see some leftists use the incident in making the case for another Obama stimulus. Will Matthew Yglesias answer the call?
In case your only source of news is ABC, CBS, NBC and/or The New York Times or, as the White House was hoping, you were out doing things with your family this long weekend and didn't check the news (which was released after midnight Sunday so it wouldn't be in any papers) the green jobs "czar," special adviser to the president, Van Jones has resigned.
But here's The One Thing: My phone, e-mail and Twitter were hammered all weekend with people offering congratulations. First, let me say I'm not the one to congratulate. I can go on and on about this stuff, but if you don't care and it doesn't connect with the American people, what I say doesn't matter.
So let me start with the good news: You still have power and clout in Washington. In many cases, your representatives in Washington knew nothing about Van Jones. You were educating them and it wasn't until late last week that a few brave political people began to speak out.
But here's the bad news: When this came out and people started to say congratulations, my first response was: You still don't get it. This was a victory of sorts, but only for those playing political games. I'm not doing that and I don't think you are either.
You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."
You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."
I read the article a couple of times. Van Jones said this was a vicious smear campaign. Van Jones was able to resign, not be fired. And, during his resignation, he placed the blame on others, not himself.
What Van Jones doesn't understand is that I didn't bring down Van Jones; you didn't bring down Van Jones; Van Jones brought down Van Jones.
Is it a smear campaign to quote Van Jones' own words?
The job market for political scientists, like the markets for most academic fields, is a lot tighter this year than in the recent past. The American Political Science Association, which held its annual meeting here over the weekend, didn't release data on the job market, but everyone here agreed that things have gotten tight.Read the whole thing, at the link.
At a session for graduate directors, one woman talked about how she is trying to help not only those finishing up their dissertations find jobs, but those from last year who are working as adjuncts, with little by way of a living wage or job security. She said she found herself wondering when she should tell her students or graduates, if they can't find tenure-track jobs, that "this just isn't going to work out" and they should look for work elsewhere.
It was a sense that the job market just isn't what it used to be (and not only the scarcity of jobs) that led the political science association, for the first time at its annual meeting, to bring graduate directors together to hear from a panel and to trade ideas about the job market. The meeting was a mix of trend analysis, philosophical debate and tips for how to better prepare graduate students to find jobs in the field. In discussing tips, many times the political scientists found themselves recommending actions that might help on the job market, but that they weren't sure were ideal for graduate education.
Even more disturbing than learning that the White House and NEA are using the arts to address specific issues, is to learn what was discussed on this new conference call. Rosenbaum mentions that there was much talk of “leveraging federal dollars” to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.Hmm. Propaganda. It's starting to become a theme.
Leveraging federal dollars? This is the problem with marrying issue specific topics, like health care and energy, with a group that is funded by tax dollars; it increases the potential of taxpayer-funded propaganda.
I'm just glad the tea parties are having such a phenomenal effect, and that the historical abomination of Obama 44 is inceasingly looking like a one term deal. January 2013 can't come fast enough for this country; although, in consolation, I'm confident that Obama's inexperience and overreaching are sealing his rep as the worst president ever.Another historic, monumental speech from the 44th President of the United States. He's averaging about one of these every three weeks now, isn't he?
To say that this President is overexposed is an understatement. He was overexposed six months ago when he let his kids appear on the cover of Jann Wenner's trashy supermarket celeb mag. I'm not sure what prefix to use, but "over-" does not sufficiently describe a President who is now doing 30-second spots for George Lopez's new late night show on TBS. Seriously.
Reading the text yesterday, Joanne Jacobs called it an excellent speech; and she addressed the concerns I noted above:
Should he tell students they have a duty to their country — not just to themselves — to become the problem solvers and innovators of the future? It’s not what I would call a radical idea. These are old-fashioned American values.Yes, they are old-fashioned. But we can't take those ideas away from the personal context in which they are presented. Parents don't like this president pitching personal responsiblity to them because they don't like his agenda of radical change. It doesn't help when Obama's allies in the entertainment/media industry push authoritarian "pledge drives" or when the White House itself launches "snitch" campaigns to track dissenters. Previous presidents did not have that baggage. So the Obama speech to students can never be as effective as was true for President Reagan or President H.W. Bush. Obama's HopeAndChange agenda has created an unprecedented regime of conformity, and the administration's "goals for students" learning packet indeed takes on a disturbing "Obama Youth" aura amid the ugly school-age intolerance the president has engendered.
Will Obama be able to resist issuing a call to youth arms to marshal help in passing his legislative agenda?See also, The Western Experience, "President Obama’s Back to School Speech."
The thing is: He won’t need to make the call explicit.
Obama zealot teachers like this one across the country will do all the extra-curricular bullying and haranguing for him.
"Sympathy for the Devil "
Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit "AND THE ROLE OF EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN WILL BE PLAYED BY…: Liberals’ Knives Come Out for Nate Silver After His Model Points to a Trump Victory..."
R.S. McCain, "'Jews Are Dead, Hamas Is Happy, and Podhoretz Has Got His Rage On ..."
Ace, "Georgia Shooter's Father Berated Him as a "Sissy" and Bought Him an AR-15 to 'Toughen Him Up'..."Free Beacon..., "Kamala Harris, the ‘Candidate of Change,’ Copies Sections of Her Policy Page Directly From Biden's Platform..."