Do You Support the 'National Strike' Scheduled for January 20?

William Jacobson makes the case against the National Strike scheduled for January 20, 2010, "Drop the “National Strike”":

Even if millions of people participated, there still would be hundreds of millions of people who did not participate for reasons having nothing to do with whether they supported the philosophy behind the boycott. The impact would be barely noticeable, and the movement would be derided as empty.

That is the difference between a protest and a boycott. A national protest involving a million people is a big deal and huge success. A national strike involving a million people is an abysmal failure. Choose your political weapon carefully.

Want to do something productive around the time of the State of the Union address? Start organizing against Democrats who vote in favor of Obamacare. All politics is local, and we need to start now to vote the bums out.

More here.

Arguments in favor here and here.

William makes a good argument, although I can see why folks might favor a national strike against the administration: Folks are tired of getting the fist:

See also, "Merry Fist-mas Media Matters… No, We’re Not Finished Yet."

Schwarzenegger Seeks $8 Billion Federal Bailout

Ed Morrissey's got a long analysis, "Schwarzenegger wants $8 billion federal bailout." Jammie too.

The story is here, "Schwarzenegger to seek federal help for California budget." (Via Memeorandum.)

But perhaps we won't need so much money, especially if the medical marijuana initiative passes. Some say pot's legal already. The state might as well make some money off it, you know? Damn the state's infrastructure and educating the youth of tomorrow. Everyone can just get stoned and forget about the imminent collapse of the formerly great state of California.

Tony Judt's America

Tony Judt hates this country. Or more specifically, he hates the uniqueness of this country, and he wants to turn the U.S. into a European welfare state based on the socialist model.

And note something too. I have little doubt Judt would leverage his own personal illness to enthusiastically pimp the socialist model to guilt-ridden Americans and leftists equally addled by anti-Americanism. He gave a lecture at NYU on October 19th. He was able to deliver the talk despite the recent onset of a debilitating paralysis stemming from Lou Gehrig's disease. The blogger Mondoweiss is practically weeping over Judt's lecture, postulating the professor as some benighted soothsayer of our socialist future. Mondoweiss says there was "real grief in seeing a great man so reduced by an illness that he has approached with a stiff upper lip."

Oh, God. Seriously, I hope Judt's not suffering. But boy are his views odious, and clueless to boot. The lecture's published at the New York Review of books. See, "What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?" It's boilerplate radicalism, offering an updating version of the longstanding problematique on the left, "Why is there no socialism in America?" The discussion drones on typically, extolling the European welfare states and denouncing the "inequality" in America. But about half way down we get to this part:

Consider the 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" (a more Orwellian title would be hard to conceive), the Clinton-era legislation that sought to gut welfare provision here in the US. The terms of this act should put us in mind of another act, passed in England nearly two centuries ago: the New Poor Law of 1834. The provisions of the New Poor Law are familiar to us, thanks to Charles Dickens's depiction of its workings in Oliver Twist. When Noah Claypole famously sneers at little Oliver, calling him "Work'us" ("Workhouse"), he is implying, for 1838, precisely what we convey today when we speak disparagingly of "welfare queens."

The New Poor Law was an outrage, forcing the indigent and the unemployed to choose between work at any wage, however low, and the humiliation of the workhouse. Here and in most other forms of nineteenth-century public assistance (still thought of and described as "charity"), the level of aid and support was calibrated so as to be less appealing than the worst available alternative. This system drew on classical economic theories that denied the very possibility of unemployment in an efficient market: if wages fell low enough and there was no attractive alternative to work, everyone would find a job.

For the next 150 years, reformers strove to replace such demeaning practices. In due course, the New Poor Law and its foreign analogues were succeeded by the public provision of assistance as a matter of right. Workless citizens were no longer deemed any the less deserving for that; they were not penalized for their condition nor were implicit aspersions cast upon their good standing as members of society. More than anything else, the welfare states of the mid-twentieth century established the profound impropriety of defining civic status as a function of economic participation.

In the contemporary United States, at a time of growing unemployment, a jobless man or woman is not a full member of the community. In order to receive even the exiguous welfare payments available, they must first have sought and, where applicable, accepted employment at whatever wage is on offer, however low the pay and distasteful the work. Only then are they entitled to the consideration and assistance of their fellow citizens.

Why do so few of us condemn such "reforms"—enacted under a Democratic president? Why are we so unmoved by the stigma attaching to their victims? Far from questioning this reversion to the practices of early industrial capitalism, we have adapted all too well and in consensual silence—in revealing contrast to an earlier generation.

What's infuriating first is Judt's complete disdain for and repudiation of work, that is, actual wage labor. It's practicallly a proposal for an unlimited dole. But more important is the total cluelessness, Judt's complete ignorance to the soulless wasteland that is the life of public assistance. Folks should just recall my earlier discussion of "Precious." That world of welfare, the face of the underclass in the years immediately prior to the passage of the Clinton administration's welfare reform, is what Judt extols.

Judt's paralyzed from the neck down. I pray he's not in pain, but I can't say a good word about his ideology, which would paralyze the country just as bad.

What's So Good About Twitter?

I'm actually a little bored with Facebook. I like it and all (especially meeting new people), but the program doesn't seem to work that well half the time. I'm by no means attached to it (unlike the blog), although I got a kick out of the New York Times' piece yesterday, "To Deal With Obsession, Some Defriend Facebook." In fact, I've been thinking about devoting more time to Twitter. Perhaps I can build up a larger following over there? Maybe that'll be more fun? I've been skeptical. David Harsanyi made a pretty good case against Twitter in his recent essay, "C'mon, Admit It. Twitter is Useless." But everything's going more and more hyper-tech these days, and Twitter is also a wireless phone app in addition to microblogging. Some folks online just love it. Anyway, I'm lagging at Twitter, much less facebook. But Ace of Spades HQ had this link up, on making better use of Twitter, so I thought I'd pass it along to readers. If you're tweeting, don't forget to tweet my blog posts. That's my next promotional effort. More Twitter exposure. I'll get hip with this stuff one of these days!

CPAC and the John Birch Society

I just finished Ryan Mauro's essay, "CPAC: Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics." It's a repudiation of the John Birch Society's sponsorship of the 2010 meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee, scheduled for February. This is the first I've heard of the JBS sponsorship. I'm from Orange County, and the group has long-standing ties to the area, a historic conservative stronghold. Mauro argues the CPAC's turning itself into a laughing stock, and he concludes:

CPAC has made a major PR mistake in forming this alliance with JBS. It won’t be long until the media puts all those taking part on the defensive, forcing the organizers to spend precious time explaining this move. From now on, when I hear the acronym “CPAC,” I won’t think “Conservative Political Action Conference.” I’ll think “Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics.”

The thing is, the only time people hear of the John Birch Society is when folks are dissing the right. I don't even think about JBS when going about my business everyday. The group is essentially meaningless to me, except as a historical footnote. Its anticommunism was considered over the top (especially the claim the Eisenhower was commie), but leftists say the same thing about the right-wing today, when conservatives defend aggressive anti-terrorism policies (think John Yoo). Indeed, if Rachel Maddow's going after the John Birch Society, along with Charles Johnson, I'm all the more inclined to give JBS the benefit of the doubt (and for proof of the point, check Gawker's piece, "The '60s Are Back! Birchers Sponsor Conservative Conference"). As it is, the administration's declared all tea partiers as right-wing terrorists. Leftists don't disaggregate conservatives -- right-wingers are "racist teabaggers" out to kill the next abortion doctor, Compared to that, I can handle a little overreaction to hyper-globalization on the right (what some call "one-worldism"). That's less worrisome than the demonic ideological terrorism of today's radical left. The Democrats in Washington, the liberal press, leftist talking heads, and radical bloggers are way more of a threat to society that a has-been conservative lobbying group trying to make a comeback:

See also, William Buckley, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me."

Libertarians and Drug Legalization

My good friend Mary Grabar has a great piece at Pajamas Media today, "Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization":

A truly sad story about a 23-year-old Panama City man dying while being subdued by Bay County sheriff’s deputies has reawakened the debate about the legalization of marijuana. On December 11, 2009, Andrew Grande choked on a plastic bag full of marijuana as police attempted to arrest him on a violence charge. A video shows police valiantly trying to save his life once it became apparent that he was having difficulty breathing.

Two talk show hosts in Panama City have been discussing the case in the early morning hours — and revealing a divide on the right. Burnie Thompson of WYOO, the libertarian, has called Grande “a casualty of the war on drugs” and contended that because marijuana is illegal, Grande felt “compelled” to swallow a bag of it to avoid punishment.

Nonsense, says Doc Washburn on station WFLF. He invited former Congressman Ernest Istook from the Heritage Foundation and Tina Trent, who blogs on crime, to speak about the dangers of marijuana to the user and to society. Trent indicated that Grande had faced probably only a misdemeanor charge; she pointed to studies showing that the illegal drug trade flourishes despite the legality of marijuana in certain states and other countries. And legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug.

The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.

My libertarian friends like to say, “I’m a libertarian, not a libertine.” But though many of the advocates of libertarianism lead socially conservative lives, their agendas promote libertinism — especially when it comes to legalizing drugs. They forget that the moral order they have inherited is put at even further risk as laws change to allow more destructive behavior.

Case in point is the sad story of Andrew Grande, whose secret life as an amateur gay porn star is not being told in the media.

To the libertarian, such a profession would also not present a problem, as prostitution does not. But the two — drug use and the self-debasement of prostitution and pornography — go hand in hand. Ask any strip club dancer how easy it is to get up on stage stone cold sober. Ask anyone who has been under the influence about the stupid things he did. Indeed, Grande probably started young, when he was impressionable. And recent reporting has shown that our “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings, was head of an organization that used the schools to promote homosexual sex between boys and men. Certainly the ability to engage in such destructive behavior is enhanced by the use of drugs ....

**********

To give sanction to a drug that robs the individual of reason and conviction is to give up on our way of life. It is another surrender to the counter-culture. It sends a dangerous message to young people. A recent study shows that the creeping sanction through legalization of “medical” marijuana in certain states is giving young teenagers a sense of safety about marijuana use.

Marijuana killed Andrew Grande, not only in the literal sense, but in the sense that it abetted his descent into a very sad, counter-cultural lifestyle. Its legalization is supported by the same forces that promote Kevin Jennings, one-world government, Gaia worship, and legalized prostitution. All these elements work against the traditional libertarian values of initiative, freedom, and honor. Libertarians need to rethink their position on drug legalization.

The entire essay is at the link.

The closest I've come to making Mary's argument is in, "The Ashley Biden Cocaine Scandal." But see also, "I Don't Smoke Pot, and I Don't Like It."

Now, compare Mary's piece to that at Silent Running (the author makes specious arguments, and essentially ad hominem attacks, rather than rebut Mary's substantive argument on culture). Via Memeorandum. Much better is David Swindle's rebuttal, "Pro-Drug War Conservatives Need to Rethink, er, REMEMBER the Role of Government." I'm still with Mary though.

Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite, Called Out Again!

Okay, following up from yesterday's post. Recall, "Beyond Purity: Brutal Backlash Against 'Hammering' Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite."

Well it turns out the Daily Kos diarists are after "Hammering" Jane Hamsher again. Apparently the FDL communist went on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss her opposition to the Senate's healthcare bill. Here's the video:

Hamsher's been knee-deep in hypocrisy through all of this, and the Kos poster provides some evidence.

... here is Jane Hamsher's own opinion of Democrats who go on Fox News.

Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

No surprise, but Hammering Hamsher doesn't address the hypocrisy at her post.

William Jacobson has more, "Biggest Defection of The Day (That You Never Heard About)."

Parker Griffith, a Blame America Democrat, to Face Conservative Primary Challenge

Okay, here's an update to my previous post, "Will Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith Be RINO?'

It turns out the basic point is not lost on voters in the district. Griffith will face a challenge in the GOP primary, accoding to Politico, "Griffith Getting Primaried" (via Memeorandum):

Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith may be switching parties to improve his reelection prospects, but he'll be facing a competitive Republican primary against a GOP elected official already in the race.

Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks will be remaining in the race, according to his campaign manager Bruce Tucker, who called Griffith’s party switch “a desperate political move.”

“We’ve known for a long time that Parker Griffith’s principles are either for sale to the highest bidder or can change depending on how the poll results are looking,” Tucker said.

Plus, conservative Les Phillip will stay in the race as well. And here's the ad the RNCC ran against Griffith last year:

Griffith is known for this statement from his 2008 campaign:

I think America's greatest enemy is America and its materialism. And I think that we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don't fear radical Islam.

He claims his remarks were taken out of context, but there's plenty of context right there to know that his party switch is meaningless. Vote him out in the primary.

ADDED: Linked at Ace of Spades HQ, "Rep. Griffith: Hey, I Just Noticed the Party I've Belonged To My Whole Life Is Sort of Liberal 'n Stuff." Also, at Republican Redefined, "Freshman Dem Parker Griffith Defects to the Right. Do We Want Him?"

Will Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith Be RINO?

This post is updated, here: "Parker Griffith, a Blame America Democrat, to Face Conservative Primary Challenge."

**********

Everyone's getting all excited about Alabama Representative Parker Griffith. A first-term Democrat, Griffith has announced he's switching parties. Griffith serves Alabama's 5th congressional, and by changing parties he'll "become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district."

But what matters is the voting, naturally. A 5th district voter e-mailed Michelle Malkin with this warning:

Michelle,

Parker Griffith DOES NOT passionately oppose government health care takeover. He voted for SCHIP, and you should have seen his campaign commercials – every one of them spoke of health care for all! He only changed his tune once the backlash for his vote for Pelosi as Speaker and the huge turn in local public opinion against government health care set in. You should have seen us at the April 15th Tea Party in Huntsville.

I live in Huntsville. I voted for Wayne Parker, a conservative Republican. I was sad to see that a Republican has never been elected to represent our congressional district. Griffith changing his party does not necessarily mean that it is a win for conservatives. He is a chameleon and afraid of losing his seat in ‘10 to true conservatives. Give Mo Brooks or Les Philip a ring – two leading conservatives who will challenge him in the next election.

I agree this is a blow to the Democrats, but whether or not it will be a true win for conservatives remains to be seen. We deserve someone who is solidly conservative (not just when to polls tell them to be) – and honest!

Your humble admirer and loyal reader,

Rebecca H.

No matter. Griffith obviously feels extremely vulnerable serving in the party of tyranny (Obama-Reid-Pelosicrats). I doubt he'll be the only congressional Democrat to change sides. But conservatives want the real thing, not RINOs. Griffith's going to have to demonstrate some bona fides in 2010, or a party switch won't preempt a primary challenge from a true limited government candidate.

Voters Oppose ObamaCare

Two related pieces on the totalitarianism of ObamaCare.

First, from Quinnipiac, "U.S. Voters Oppose Health Care Plan By Wide Margin, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Say 3-1, Plan Should Not Pay For Abortions":

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters also oppose 72 - 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

American voters also disapprove 51 - 44 percent of President Obama's handling of the economy and disapprove 56 - 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs. But voters favor 52 - 42 percent his plan to use $200 billion left over from the bank bailout for a new stimulus package to create jobs rather than to reduce the budget deficit.

Only 31 percent of voters say Obama's policies will help their personal financial situation, while 37 percent say his policies will hurt and 30 percent say his policies will make no difference. Among voters in households where someone has lost a job in the last year, 37 percent say Obama policies will help them personally, while 37 percent say they will hurt.

Looking at the health care plan, independent voters "mostly disapprove" 58 - 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 - 10 percent. Democrats "mostly approve" 64 - 22 percent.

Obviously, not change folks can believe in.

But check out Erick Erickson, who clearly reflects this national disapproval, "We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare":

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

More at the link. (Via Memorandum.)

Also, Pundette & Pundette, "Tyrannical majority tramples rules and rights."

A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain

Barrett Brown, who was included in my post the other day, quickly snagged his opportunity to exploit my comments in furtherance of his smears against Robert Stacy McCain. See, "A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain." In turn, Brown's post was picked up by the Lizard Freak, Charles Johnson, and his essay, "Regarding Barrett Brown's Offer to Debate White Supremacist Robert Stacy McCain."

Barrett's piece is politely said, if not quite accurate. For example, I've never sought to establish myself as some kind of expert on Robert Stacy McCain's journalistic legacy. I've even said so, noting previously that, "I'm not in the habit of following along all that closely." What I have done is taken my personal experience with Robert and laid that out as measure of the man's character (see, "Take It From Me, An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist!"). Despite all of this, Barret Brown takes me to task, opportunistically, to forward his meme of Robert as an "evil" racist redneck -- or, in Brown's words, "a white supremacist with significant past ties to the neo-Nazi community."

Boy, that's heavy stuff, all of it. But there's actually not that much too it. As I've said before, Robert Stacy McCain can fend for himself, but what little evidence Barrett Brown offers is wholly tainted as products themselves of ideological smear campaigns. Exhibit A is this post from "Sergey Romanov," entitled, "Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a Neo-Confederate Wacko Extraordinaire." The entry's basically a long crib sheet of allegedly "vile" articles and comments from Robert's days as an associate editor at the Washington Times. This includes a long bibliography of comments Robert's said to have posted around the web, at places such as Free Republic. All of this is supposed to be damning. But looking at them, I see nothing there that's any more inflammatory than, say, what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington argued in his penetrating but politically-incorrect book, Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity. Indeed, as far back as 1993, Huntington gained tremendous notoriety for his seminal essay "The Clash of Civilizations?" The reaction was immediate and furious. As always, anyone who proposes that America's historic Anglo-Protestant culture is superior to the rest will be labeled racist. American exceptionalism is out of vogue on the left, for it proposes a certain model of traditionalism that has deep roots in the multiple traditions of American conservatism. Major leftist pushback thus goes with the territory. Huntington, who was a former president of the American Political Science Association, handled the attacks with grace and reason, in contrast to many of the truly "vile" attacks by his critics, seen as literally unhinged. When Huntington passed away, the left's radical gay activists cheered. See, "Racist Samuel P. Huntington Is Dead."

In any case, what's mosting interesting in looking at the Sergey Romanov post is the reactions. As one commenter there indicated with respect to Charles Johnson:

Johnson has heaped equal moral approbation on conservatives for essentially every stand any conservative has taken on anything since 1/20/2009.

In the sequence of johnson's disengagement from the right, this Stacy McCain thing is the most recent. His allegations came at the time they did at a point at which his credibility and assumptions about his good faith where at their nadir already ....

Johnson now believes that the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights is a "racist dogwhistle". His criteria for identifying racism on the right is now as obtuse as once was his criteria for identifying antisemitism on the left.

Many other observers of Charles Johnson's descent to hell have made similar points. Visiting Little Green Footballs one sees in insanely quixotic mission to destroy difference -- yes, just difference -- on the right of the spectrum. For example, just today, "Malkin Links to 'Buzzworthy' Anti-Israel Rant at White Nationalist Website":

But with regards to Barret Brown himself, I've found this really interesting bit of information at one of Robert's responses to the smears. It's this screencap below, to this blurb on the 'Godless Americans March on Washington" from 2002. And Barrett Brown is listed as "Communications Director" at Enlighten the Vote. So, what kind of organization is this? Enlighten the Vote is a political action committee of the American atheist movement. The PAC is apparently so bad that no one -- and I mean absolutely no one -- wants anything to do with them.

Frankly, I have to admit my ignorance on this group, or Barret Brown, for that matter. But my inclination all along, since I first noticed how Barrett Brown was getting picked up by the Lizard King, is that the True/Slant blogger was soldier in the radical left's campaign for gay marriage, if not for pure homosexual licentiousness. And lo and behold, what do I find searching around a bit? Brown attacks James Dobson as a "degenerate old fascist."

Of course, now it's fair to say that Barret Brown is dreadfully wrong to suggest that I'm "in no position to know what the 'bulk of these charges' may be" against Robert Stacy McCain." No, actually, despite my disclaimer, I wasn't wrong in the first place, and I'm not wrong now. And let me disabuse Barret Brown of his notion that "the totality of the evidence" that he's offered "unambiguously" convicts Robert Stacy McCain as "a white supremacist with significant past ties to the neo-Nazi community." It does nothing of the sort. I've looked through everything he's linked. I've visited American Renaissance, and I long ago dismissed those of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Michelangelo Signorile as race and sexual-orientation shakedown artists who'd make Jesse Jackson proud.

Screw these people. The only thing Robert Stacy McCain's guilty of is speaking his mind. Perhaps you might throw in a little bravado or stupidy for having posted at websites and message boards advocating white supremacy and race war, but none of Robert's actual quotes are particularly inflammatory -- unless you're looking for a "racist" target. The most Barrett Brown, Charles Johnson, and now Patrick Frey, can do is alleged R.S. McCain's "racism" twice or three times removed from those who could be accurately described that way. As I've already shown, for example, there's nothing inherently racist about not favoring interracial marriage. If that were so, we'd have to call most Americans white or black "racist," since they prefer to marry someone of like ethnic charateristics.

No, what I've shown all along --- the "general theory" proposed here -- is that "racism" is all these idiots have left. And of course, it's basically checkmate when you throw in they nihilist gay rights advocacy for these twerps. Even Patterico's in favor of gay marriage, which explains his motives for joining in the smear campaign against Robert Stacy McCain. Again, see my previous post on the left's victimology industry, "Take It From Me, An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist! And see also, South Texian, "The McCain Defamation":

... Robert Stacy McCain did not and has not exhibited racism, nor has he ever excused it. As Stacy himself likes to say, "there are facts and there are witnesses to those facts." The fact is that Stacy is a good man, and you may consider me one of the witnesses.

* The theory holds that in the presence of firm conservative views among movement activist and leaders (those who privilege the superiority of traditional culture and values), radical leftists will resort to unprincipled, morally-bankrupt demonizations and unsubtantiated hearsay smear-campaigns in the absence of effectively superior argumentation or irrefutable evidence for their allegations. (In other words, when all else fails, play the race-card.) This ends up being a law-like proposition, which is theoretically correlated with the deterioration of race relations in America upon the accession to power of Barack Obama as president. (Polls suggest that CRITICISM of the administration is tantamount to racism, when it's anything but). In other words, "conservative = racist." See, "The Function of General Laws in History":

A universal hypothesis may be assumed to assert a regularity of the following type: In every case where an event of a specified kind C occurs at a certain place and time, an event of a specified kind E will occur at a place and time which is related in a specified manner to the place and time of the occurrence of the first event.

Added: Robert Stacy McCain, "Resolved: Barrett Brown is a Putz."

America's Socialist Revolution

From Matt Patterson, "The Socialist Revolution Has Come to America"

Many will tell you that it was the financial crisis that led to the election of Obama in 2008. It is certainly true that John McCain’s erratic response to that meltdown did nothing to enhance his chances. But the Republican goose was cooked long before Lehman by years of war, seemingly endless reports of our soldiers struggling valiantly to hold back chaos in faraway lands for reasons that were growing less clear by the day, and a Republican president who seemed frighteningly inarticulate and uncomprehending throughout. The public had simply had enough.

Into this breech stepped a charming, charismatic, seemingly moderate Democrat (he even promised tax cuts!). Barack Obama made everyone feel good — about him, about themselves, about themselves for supporting him. And America wanted, needed to feel good again; they had spilled too much blood, had too much of their own blood spilled, in the preceding eight years.

A Republican Party in tatters, a nation exhausted and desperate. Are there any other conditions under which the American people could have turned to a man like Barack Obama? For just under the smooth, smiling facade lurked a man of deep allegiance to the radical left, counting among his associates both an avowed terrorist and a raving radical preacher.

But Americans didn’t want to hear it and the media obliged them. The ideologue was soon ensconced in the White House, where he acted swiftly to upend the entirety of American society through a comprehensive, two-pronged assault:

1. The government moved to take greater control of medical care and thus one-sixth of our entire economy. The excuse? Some people don’t have insurance, don’t you know? What are the details? Good question: specifics hatched in back rooms behind closed doors, utterly incomprehensible bills that may as well be carved in hieroglyphics. What will it mean for you? Why, whatever they want it to mean, of course.

2. Efforts to criminalize a particular naturally occurring compound, CO2, picked up pace. Why have they so singled out this substance? Because it is a byproduct of work and, indeed, life itself — every time you turn on your heater, every time you drive to work, every time you sit down to eat: don’t you know these sinful behaviors must be curbed, because you are “poisoning the planet” with your every move?

Success in this double strategy would amount to nothing less than a socialist revolution. A revolution of legislative opacity and bureaucratic fiat, to be sure, but a revolution just the same, for there is literally no part of your existence they couldn’t justify controlling under the cover of “health care” and “emissions” reform. Resistance would be met at first with peaceable punishments, fines and such. But the history of such revolutions shows that, sooner or later, they enforce their dictates with bars and boots.

Think it can’t happen here? History is littered with the wreckage of free states that gave way, sometimes with a scream, often with a whimper, to autocracy and absolutism. The city that gave birth to the world’s first and greatest republic was also home to Caesar and Mussolini.

America is not immune to these forces. The tides of history are inexorable and sooner or later pull every edifice into the sea.

Image Credit: The People's Cube.

Beyond Purity: Brutal Backlash Against 'Hammering' Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite

I noticed this earlier, from "Hammering" Jane Hamsher, "Left/Right Populist Outrage Will Defeat Senate Health Care Bill":

And now, from Moe Lane, "Let me just push back on the Left’s attempt to co-opt…"

... the anti-health care rationing movement:

The Online Left wants to see the Tea Party movement – and the GOP, thank you very much – collectively die in a fire. They’ve been screeching about those evil, evil corporations for the last year, and fuming impotently because they can’t get any traction on it while a bunch of center-right activists put together an opposition movement that dwarfed theirs. In other words: they very, very, very badly want to try to co-opt what we (generic) built to serve their own ends.

To put it more simply: these people are not our friends ...

I'll say. Now, while Moe's not primarily focusing on Jane Hamsher, she IS the most freakin' hypocritical in all of this. No one's deployed the slur "teabagger" more gleefully than Hammering Hamsher -- and that's counting Janeane Garofalo! Recall this post from August, "Calling Colorado: Malkin’s Teabaggers Targeting Pelosi in Denver":

And of course, Hammering Hamsher's one of the left's most despicable racists. Even Daily Kos took her to task -- quite effectively, I'll add -- over her racist black-face demonology of Senator Joseph Lieberman. And linked there is an out-of-this world quotation on Hammering Jane's expedient alliances (with Phyllis Schlafly, no less!):

The left-right coalition sent a letter to members of the Senate today includes Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage, Americans for Taxpayer Reform president Grover Norquist, FireDogLake blogger Jane Hamsher, Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly Campaign for Liberty president John Tate and Center for Economic and Policy Research president Dean Baker.

This is interesting, considering how the media's always focusing on "purity" tests for the right, and not to mention how much attention idiots like Charles Johnson generate by smearing folks like Robert Stacy McCain. Indeed, this is beyond purity. Folks just REVILE Jane Hamsher. A few of the other diarist at Daily Kos have jumped into the fray. See, "On Jane Hamsher and Manufactured Outrage," and "Jane Hamsher's Staff." And apparently, she's been pissing folks off on that side for some time. See, "Jane Hamsher can pucker up her Noam Chomsky lips and blow me."

And just in time, Hammering Hamsher's responded, "An Invitation to De-Lurk":

It’s a pretty contentious time in the blogosphere. People have very different opinions about what should happen with health care reform — at FDL, we’re working to kill the Senate bill, while the top-rated diary at Kos is “Thank you Senator Reid, Senate leadership, and Staff.” Emotions are running high. Last night, this top-rated diary – which was written in response to this post that I wrote about people on the left and right joining together to oppose the Senate bill — alarmed a lot of people and brought them over here.

All of these things are okay. It’s good to have diversity of opinion and healthy debate.

Actually, no Jane, it's not okay. (And isn't "lurking" another slur? Nice way to "welcome" folks to the community!) Go back and take a look at some of those diaries. You're not just unliked, you're despised.

How's that for a demonstration of some unified left/right outrage!

RELATED: Mickey Kaus, "Health Care: Will Kabuki kill Pong?" (via Memeorandum).

Picture of the Day, 12-21-09

Courtesy of Bloviating Zeppelin:

RELATED: Epic Fail of the Day, "Democrats Expect Health Care Bounce" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, runner up, "CBO Pegs Nelson's Nebraska Medicaid Deal Cost at $100 Million."

ADDED: Pamela Geller e-mails to remind me that the bill is very much alive. I'm actually seeing this as a metaphor for the Dems' electoral chances next year. Those folks are going need some catastrophic care after next November! See Atlas Shrugs, "Another New Low for the New Low."

Paul Krugman: A Dangerous Nutroots Blogger

A couple of points need to be highlighted regarding Paul Krugman's opinion piece at New York Times today, "A Dangerous Dysfunction." (Via Memeorandum.)

The first is that the essay's a good indication of the outsized influence of unhinged radical bloggers have on people like Paul Krugman, a Princeton professor and Nobel prizewinner. For example, just last Saturday, Krugman cited America-basher Matthew Yglesias in a blog post about the progressive foundations of the ObamaCare legislation. (For the extremist context there, recall that last month Yglesias argued moral equivalence between GOP senators filibustering healthcare and first-degree murderers.) In his essay today, Krugman's recycling the months-long argument for killing the filibuster, a proposal most notoriously circulated by Ezra Klein at the Washington Post (who himself argued that Joseph Lieberman's threat of a filibuster would "cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people"), and distributed further by Yglesias et al.

But the second thing is perfectly related to the first. It turns out that last week Krugman announced, "By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." And very oddly, in his essay today, after mentioning Tom Harkin and Joseph Lieberman in the same breath, Krugman inserts this passage in parentheses, "(Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.)"

WTF.

Seriously, what's that supposed to be? As Jennifer Rubin points out, "A more insincere apology would be hard to find." And she adds:

What is clear is that for all the Times’s snooty condescension about the blogosphere, the editorial pages of the Gray Lady are no better than the average netroot blog. Journalistic ethics? Puh-leez! Common decency? Fuggedaboutit!

That's perfect.

RELATED: From the comments at the Political Carnival, "Why in effigy? Just kidding. But ol' Joe sure sold us down the river ..."

Not kidding, obviously. And of course, not surprisingly, Charles Johnson's not trolling the comments on the nutroots side of things. Just saying ...

Change Nobody Believes In

Really, is it any wonder why Americans hate this administration?

From the Wall Street Journal, "Change Nobody Believes In" (via):

A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.

And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

RTWT. Hat Tip: Patriot Room.

RELATED: From Theo Spark, "Twas the Week Before Christmas and They Said on the Hill ... Who Cares if it's Bad, Let's Just Pass a Bill ..."

Nation's Tallest Christmas Tree - Fashion Island, Newport Beach, California

I took both boys over to Fashion Island tonight.

That's me, your local tour guide, having a bite to eat at the food court (photo by American Power progeny #2). The mall features both indoor and outdoor amenities, like the Japanese koi pond in the second and third shots below (both boys are seated at center, third picture down, looking away):

Every Christmas the shopping center imports a massive white fir tree from the Mt. Shasta area, in the Cascade mountains of Northern California. Here's the "story" of the tree:

The second paragraph reads:

The Christmas tree represents Fashion Island's dedication to preserving the environment while providing our with the best of holiday traditions. Please enjoy this spectacular tree with peace of mind, knowing that tremendous care was taken to preserve the environment.

My youngest boy took this next shot:

I stepped back a little for this one. Might be a little under 100 feet tall, or at least it doesn't seem as tall as the tree they had a couple of years ago. Either way, it's big:

Around to the left, I walked up to take this shot, holding the camera low:

The ornaments at bottom are massive, the size of cantaloupes. Here's a shot of the base of the tree with "presents":

Here's this from an information page:

Normally a white fir from northern California's Mt. Shasta, the tree features 17,000 lights and ornaments, and weighs approximately 20,000 lbs. It requires a 10-man crew approx. two weeks to decorate the giant beauty. The enormous tree makes its home in the Bloomingdale's Courtyard of Fashion Island.

I should have some pictures from the Spectrum Mall in Irvine tomorrow or the next day. They build an outdoor ice rink every year, which is quite fabulous.

Obama's Jokers

From Gateway Pundit, "We Will Never Forget — Here’s Our Promise to Democrats Who Vote to Nationalize Health Care":

Claire McCaskill — Don’t Think We Will Forget This.

We can’t stop them from passing their radical, unpopular, rationed health care legislation but we can promise them this:

We promise to actively and openly campaign against every democrat who votes for this bill no matter if you are a red state democrat or a blue state democrat.

We promise to forever kill the myth that there is such a creature as a bluedog democrat.

We promise to donate to campaigns to defeat the democrats who vote for this radical expansion of the federal government.

We promise to make it known how you bought your votes with our taxpayer money to pass this bill.

We promise that we will never forget how your party leaders and your state-run media called Americans who opposed this lousy nationalized health care bill – mobsters, radicals, Nazis and teabaggers.

We promise to never forget that you voted to force taxpayers to fund abortion by voting for this bill and that your bill requires a monthly abortion fee.

We promise to never forget that your plan allows for government coverage of illegal aliens.

We promise to attend your town hall meetings and confront you about your vote to takeover one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Not even your SEIU and ACORN thugs will keep us away.

We promise to let Americans and seniors know that democrats just cut $470 billion from their Medicare.

We promise to let Americans know that you voted to ration their health care.

We promise to NEVER FORGET that you voted against the wishes of the people you represent.

We promise…

See also, "Claire McCaskill 'Obama’s Joker' Signs Seen in West County."

Remember, that goes for all of Obama's Jokers. (Via Memeorandum.)

P.S. I wonder how Howie Klein like them apples?

Scotland Yard Issues Blunt Warning of Mumbai-Style Terror Attack on London

This is the first I've heard of this report. It overlaps with my analysis from yesterday at "Global Challenges in 2010."

See the Times of London, "Police expect Mumbai-style terror attack on City of London":

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

It was issued by the Met through its network of “security forums”, which provide business leaders, local government and the emergency services with counter-terrorism advice.

During a “commando-style” raid by 10 gunmen on hotels and cafes in Mumbai in November 2008, 174 people were killed and more than 300 injured over three days.

Officials now report an increase in “intelligence chatter” — communications captured by electronic eavesdropping agencies. One senior security adviser said the police warnings had intensified and become much more specific in the past fortnight.

“Before, there has been speculation. Now we are getting what appears to be a definite plot to carry out a firearms attack on London,” he said.

Earlier this year, police, military and intelligence services held an exercise in Kent to see whether they could defeat a commando raid in London by terrorists.

“The exercise brought out to those taking part that the capability doesn’t exist to deal with that situation should it arise,” said a military source.

Security sources said concerns had been raised by “chatter” on a prominent jihadist website two weeks ago.

One contributor suggested fighters could use automatic weapons to strike places such as nightclubs, sporting venues and Jewish centres.

There's more at the link, for example, the piece notes that in Mumbai, most of those killed were shot within the first half hour of the attack.

And recall my warning yesterday:

I don't think the world will experience another 9/11-style catastrophe. I do think we'll have more Mumbais, sadly, and they'll be launched in the developed states (and thus keep an eye on the implications from that 21 percent for AfPak).

I mention Afghanistan/Pakistan since that's the location for the center of Islamic fanaticism in today's world. I expect the hinterlands near Waziristan to continue to grow as the main crossroads of international terrorism. Just last week, the five Americans arrested in Pakistan had traveled to join jihad. And of course, it's a round trip destination, with the jihadis entering in the insurgent campaigns with the Taliban and both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as with other groups such as Lashkar, which is said to be associated with Kashmiri separatists. For more on these relationships, see Paul Sperry, "Homegrown Insurgency."

Hillary Clinton in 2016?

I've been suggesting this very scenario to students during lectures. There's an especially compelling case in the event of a one-term Obama presidency. From the Telegraph UK, "Smart Money is on Hillary Clinton for 2016":

Driving past the White House the other day, my eye was caught by the bumper sticker on the shiny black Toyota Prius in front of me. It read: "We love you Hillary - Clinton for President, 2016".

A year ago, I'd have snorted at the slogan and kept my distance from the vehicle - judging the driver to be a delusional Clintonite diehard still desperately fighting the reality that the former First Lady's presidential aspirations were history.

Now, the person behind that wheel seems to be on the money. Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

These are very early days to handicap 2016 but it's already clear that she has gone from being the supposedly inevitable 2008 nominee who had blown her one big chance as odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic president.

When Mrs Clinton accepted the job of Secretary of State many of her supporters feared she was falling into a trap. Fearing that she could be a rival source of power from Capitol Hill, Obama calculated she would be less of a threat if he brought her inside his tent.

The downsides for the former First Lady were obvious. She would give up her cherished seat as Senator for New York, which gave her an independent power base. Her voice on domestic policy would be silenced.

And her fortunes would inevitably be linked to the man whom she fervently believed was not up to the top job.

It is a sign of Mrs Clinton's astuteness that she said yes and now finds herself ideally placed to succeed Mr Obama or, in the increasingly plausible scenario that he becomes a one-term president, the Republican who ousts him in 2012.

More at the link.

2016 is a long way off. I'm more interested in "ousting Obama in 2012, and totally confident's the Dems will be beaten, and badly. It's going to start in 2010, in fact. 1994 redux. We'll worry about HRC later.