Daily Archives: November 9th, 2009

Read this post »

At what point did Mr. Leg Thrill pass the point of partisanship and become an intellectually dishonest stooge? Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The pageant's lawyers presented it to get her to back down off her lawsuit. Carrie Prejean wasn't the only member of her family who got a peek at Carrie's solo sex tape -- TMZ has learned her MOM was in...

I'm beginning to wonder about their sanity. Will they crack up in their defense of the indefensible narrative? The damned pesky quote is at the beginning of the interview, Pvt. Foster says "when the assailant stood up, screamed, and yelled...

I'm beginning to wonder about their sanity. Will they crack up in their defense of the indefensible narrative? The damned pesky quote is at the beginning of the interview, Pvt. Foster says "when the assailant stood up, screamed, and yelled...

“‘Women tend to have a more practical, less ideological way of approaching life and, therefore, approaching politics, and our party doesn’t always take kindly to that,’ said former Ohio Rep. [...] Read the rest »

She is no longer Minority Leader Pro Tempore in the New York State Assembly. Republican Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb accepted her resignation. Here's what Kolb said:Today, I had a thorough and frank discussion...

Read this post »

Read this post »

Sometimes I write something, only to later discover the perfect quote that should have been included. This, of course, is terribly frustrating.It happened again recently. The other week, I wrote a column describing...

One international leader was conspicuously absent at the 20 Year Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall today.

Even the Russian President made it there.

From L: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and German President Horst Koehler shelter from the rain under umbrellas as they make their way through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, as part of the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. (AFP
/Michael Gottschalk)

Obama sent a video instead.

U.S. President Barack Obama is seen on screens during a video message at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, Monday, Nov. 9, 2009, during the commemorations of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov.9, 1989. (AP/Markus Schreiber)

Even worse- Obama spoke about himself to the crowd:

“Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

And, of course, he did not mention Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher in his speech.

So it's Monday all. And the White House war on Fox seems to have entered the out-of-sight phase. 8 Memorable Sesame Street Celebrity Cameos And here's an appearance by a young Morgan Freeman on The Electric Company as a hippy/Hendrix...

Writing on his website, which used to be called “New Majority” until he got tired of people laughing at him, David Frum published an essay called “The Palin Fantasy” over the weekend. [...] Read the rest »

---

More marketers are trying to fool customers by telling them that buying something makes you a "good citizen" because a portion of your purchase goes to “save” the polar bears, or the homeless, or Glenn Beck (OK, not the last one).

The con is called "cause marketing," and it’s quite successful. The marketing research group IEG says:

North American companies will spend about $1.55 billion on cause marketing efforts in 2009.

The Consumerist points out that if you like Sweater A and Sweater B, but Sweater B saves polar bears, the choice is easy.

(B)ut did you ever stop to think if the polar bears are really getting the money?...

....the actual percentage is not covered in any specific contract between them and the charity, or governed by disclosure requirements.

The New York Times frets that this will backfire on charities:

Donors... will feel they are making donations all the time and be less likely to write out big checks at the end of the year.

The Consumerist's suggestion:

If you really want to help out, donate directly to the charity. You can use a site like Charity Navigator to make sure that most of your money goes to the cause, and not the corporate coffers.

And bear in mind that the charity itself may be a pointless “feel-good scam.” It’s not clear that giving to “save the polar bears” has value beyond promoting Al Gore’s beliefs. Some researchers say that polar bears are not in trouble. The Polar Bear Specialist Group, a team of researchers and managers from five circumpolar nations, says that one subpopulations of bears is increasing, eight are declining and three are stable. There is insufficient data to assess the remaining seven.

Alaska’s governor says that hysteria over polar bears needlessly jeopardizes drilling for oil and gas:

Gov. Sean Parnell... charged that the federal Fish and Wildlife Service had acted illegally by listing the polar bear as threatened based on future climate and population predictions.

The marketers con us. The activists con us. The politicians...

MSNBC's Chris Matthews has said some things that would make your scratch your head - like getting a thrill up his leg from a speech given by Barack Obama. However, this one will really make you wonder what he was thinking.

On his Nov. 9 broadcast of "Hardball," in an interview with Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Matthews compared the incident of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan at Ft. Hood to Sirhan Sirhan's 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

"You know, I have a hard time with this because people like Sirhan Sirhan, who is still serving time for killing Bobby Kennedy, didn't like what Bobby Kennedy had said on television," Matthews said. "Bobby Kennedy had made political statements saying we're going to sell arms, fighter planes directly to Israel, not under the table. We're going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Those are the things that triggered his killing spree. He killed one person - Bobby Kennedy, horrifically. But did he become a different religious person because he committed the crime? And when did this happen?" [Audio: Part I here (925 KB), Part II here (1.18 MB)]

But the struggle Matthews was having - that given Reuters had reported Hasan had tried to contact al Qaeda, was that reason enough to intervene on the activities of Hasan (emphasis added).

"See - we have a problem," Matthews said. "How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

And this was obviously a philosophical struggle for the "Hardball" host, as he reiterated he confusion.

"Well, this guy, according to all the testament, admittedly it has not been admitted into court. We cannot call him the shooter until we have a trial. That's the way we work here, you know, that's how it works in America, certainly not in the news business. You can't call somebody a murderer until you get a conviction in court. And the question here is when can you identify a problem? That's what we have to deal with. And you say it's an ideological point - you can find the problem. But then we get into the business of checking out on people's thinking. And that's the problem.

Incredibly, this wasn't just a one-time lapse for Matthews. He reiterated his question, if contacting al Qaeda, an institution classified as a terrorist organization by several international governments and organizations, was crime (emphasis added).

"When does a person become a danger, when they have a certain thought system? Or when they go out and buying semi-automatic pistols, or when they start phoning up al Qaeda, saying how can I join the gang? I mean, where do you stop a person? This is criminology, maybe not ideology, but or even religion. But how do we weed out a guy - it seems to me, all of the warning signs, I mean, we have seen them all now. It's like looking at pictures of Muhammad Ata hanging around convenience stores and going to ATM machines. We got all kinds of information on this guy after it's too late."

Amazingly, Matthews even compared himself to Hasan - suggesting his actions were just criticism of the United States invasion of Iraq, with just one subtle difference.

"But this guy was running around shooting his mouth off saying how he hated this country's wars with - look, you can listen to me on television and hear me saying I didn't like the war with Iraq. You know, I don't agree with the war on Iraq and a lot of Americans didn't like the war with Iraq. They didn't start shooting people about it."

He wasn't "likely to be violent." Um, spectacularly wrong, as it turns out; but when spies contact the enemy, do we routinely drop investigations of them based on their propensity for violence? Most spies aren't violent. They do cause the...

The good news? [...] Read the rest »

Chris Cillizza is a talented but partisan political reporter for the Washington Post. One of his specialties is purporting to draw lessons about political candidates from obscure and rather meaningless comments and events. Somehow, these lessons typically reflect favorably on liberal Democrats and unfavorably on conservative Republicans.

For example, I wrote here about how, during the 2008 campaign, Cillizza pronounced that Barack Obama possessed "gravitas" based on some mushy statements the candidate made during a press conference in Jordan. This was cheerleading, pure and simple. And Scott provided this example of how, now that Obama is president, Cillizza appears to have "absorbed the White House line directly into his bloodstream."

The latest instance of Cillizza's partisanship can be found in today's Washington Post where -- in his typical "more in sorrow than in anger" manner -- he concludes based on two very small events that Governor Tim Pawlenty has "struggled on the national stage in the past two weeks."

In reality, the only "struggle" evident in Cillizza's piece is his own failed quest for coherence.

The first alleged Pawlenty stumble was his decision to endorse Doug Hoffman in the special congressional election in New York state. Cillizza says that this was not a smart move, but he struggles to explain why. He notes that Hoffman lost, but does not say why he thinks the wisdom of supporting Hoffman over a liberal Republican was contingent on the outcome of the race.

Cillizza intones that "Pawlenty detractors are sure to see these two incidents as evidence of a transparent attempt to tack to his idelogical right in advance of a presidential primary process that is dominated by conservative activists." It's clear that one "Pawlenty detractor" -- Chris Cillizza -- sees it that way. What's not clear is why it was unwise of Pawlenty to make a decision that liberals, if they notice, will view in a bad light but that most conservatives will greet with approval.

Moreover, while "Pawlenty detractors" will view his endorsement of Hoffman as opportunistic, there's no good reason to see it as such. As Cillizza acknowledges, most of the conservative base preferred Hoffman to Dede Scozzafava. It's possible that Pawlenty was simply trying "tranparently" to curry favor with that base by "tacking to his right." But it's at least as plausible to conclude that Pawlenty's views are genuinely in line with those of the base on this issue and that no "tacking" was involved. John and I (and most other conservative bloggers) favored Hoffman and said so. We were not trying to "tack to our ideological right" in advance of the presidential primaries. Why assume that Pawlenty was?

The second alleged Pawlenty stumble was his statement that "if Olympia Snowe disagrees with us on one or two things, there's room for her, course; but if she disagrees with us on everything, then that's a problem." This statement is a truism. Who can dispute that a Republican who disagrees with the consensus Republican position on every issue poses a problem for Republicans?

Cillizza says that Pawlenty "had to reach out to Snowe" to explain that he was arguing for a "big tent" party, not a "small tent" one. Snowe is known to be quite sensitive about this issue, so it was wise for Pawlenty to "reach out" to her. However, it's unlikely (1) that the Republican base will have any trouble with Pawlenty's comment, (2) that the comment was opportunistic or insincere, and (3) that anyone other than Cillizza will attach any significance to it if Pawlenty finds himself the Republican nominee and in need of the votes of independents.

Disclaimer: we're talking politics here, not personal stuff . . .

If there's a bigger sourpuss in Congress than Barney Frank, I wouldn't want to meet him. On MSNBC this evening, the dyspeptic Member from Massachusetts got into it with, of all people, Ed Schultz.  You might think the two libs would make beautiful progressive music together, but what made this spat especially entertaining was that Barney found himself being attacked . . . from the left.

The topic was the billions in bonuses awarded by Wall Street firms that had received TARP money.  Schultz's beef was that Congress blew it by awarding TARP dough without obtaining advance agreement limiting bonus payouts. 

View video here if flash player not visible.

Barney's basic response was that any excessive compensation could be recaptured via taxation.

Dispute details aside, sit back and enjoy as two libs lambaste each other.  

Speaking of domestic terrorism, John Allan Muhammed -- the D.C. sniper -- is scheduled for execution tomorrow. I share a couple of memories here.

---

The gulag was too offensive.

(Twitpics)
The students of Young Americans for Liberty hosted a rally to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall at noon today on the lawn outside the Ann W. Olin Women’s Building at Washington University.

The students set up a gulag complete with prisoners, guards and barb wire on the Wash U campus.

Students constructed a memorial to the victims of socialism as a stark reminder of the horrors of socialism, and of its victims.

“We’re hoping to elevate the thinking of students about the connection between socialism, tyranny, and murder. Too often, we tend to think about state control in the abstract. This event is an opportunity to show the student body what socialism really is,” said junior Dirk Doebler, student leader of Young Americans for Liberty and lead organizer of the event. “We’re just twenty years away from the collapse of the Soviet Union’s despotic enslavement of hundreds of millions of people, yet everyone seems to forget that socialism killed over 150,000,000 people in the 20th century. All that gets lost in the convenient narrative our professors would have us believe. With this event, we’re striking down false notions. We’re speaking truth to power.”

YAL leader John Burns reported on the event today.
The university shut it down… It was too offensive.

Young Americans for Liberty is a growing student group at Washington University in St. Louis. YAL agrees with Nobel Laureate in economics Frederick Hayek, that socialism leads to totalitarianism. Socialism is a faulty idea that kills. This event aims at showing the horrors of the implementation of that idea.

** There is more video to come of the university shutting down the gulag.

UPDATE: ACORN pimp-daddy James O’Keefe was in town and stopped by the protest. Darin from Reboot Congress interviewed James here.

Read this post »

  08 November 2009 Got a ping today about an attack on the road between Jalalabad and Kabul.  It’s a dangerous road and I don’t like to drive it.  The source has always been reliable, so...

View Original Post

In all fairness, some of the questions in the Berkeley video were tough.  Thus, I decided to think of the easiest possible questions regarding the Obama administration.  As per usual, you can’t...

View Original Post

In a bleary-eyed opinion article in the Sunday Boston Globe (11/8/09), Harvard divinity professor Harvey Cox denounces religious "fundamentalism." In doing so, he places mass-murdering Muslims from the Middle East on the same playing field as conservative Christians from the United States. From Cox's article:

As the 20th century ended and a new one began, fundamentalism has taken on more formidable shapes, both politically and religiously. Though most of its adherents work through spiritual and educational channels, the small minority that turn to violence have caught the media’s attention. If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and exploding bombs at weddings. For plenty of thoughtful people, fundamentalism has come to represent the most dangerous threat to open societies since the fall of communism.

Cox's passage reveals a number of egregious errors. Gunning down abortion doctors is not a practice of fundamentalist Christianity. A deliberate murder of an abortion doctor is a direct violation of Christian teaching. (Fifth commandment, anyone?)

Second, Cox 's caricature of Christians "[gunning] down abortion doctors in church" is an incredible smear. Although any murder of an abortion doctor is unacceptable, exactly one abortion doctor has been "gunned down in church" (Dr. George Tiller, 2009). And since Roe v. Wade passed over thirty-six years ago in 1973, a grand total of eight abortion doctors and workers have been murdered in the United States and Canada. (Tiller's murder was the first of an American abortion doctor in the 21st century.)

By comparison, while reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar," Nidal Malik Hasan brutally annihilated far more individuals in a matter of seconds at Fort Hood this week. Do the math, Harvey. Then there's September 11th, the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2005 London bombings, almost-daily homicide bombings ... You get the picture. Cox's comparison is awfully warped.

Surprise! A Harvard professor doesn't recognize his own muddled thinking.

-=-=-=-=-=

There's a lot more to critique about Cox's piece, but he is correct in one notable passage. In opining about modern "spirituality," Cox writes:

The plethora of emerging new spiritualities has its own problems, of course. They are often intellectually incoherent or melt into a self-centered narcissism. They can become vacuous and faddish. (Madonna and other Hollywood celebrities are now “into Kabala,” the ancient Jewish mystical tradition.) They can become highly individualistic, lacking any vision of social justice. Esoteric and snobbish at times, they often fail to reach the poor and dispossessed people for whom Jesus, the Buddha, and the Jewish prophets had such concern.

Exactly. But isn't Cox criticizing the exact same thing that Christian fundamentalists rail against? Hmmm.

 

Just an update to our earlier post, Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? Obamic Options 004. I posed the following question:

[W]ould President Barack H. Obama ever admit to the American people that -- contrary to the knee-jerk FBI statement -- such a shooting under these assumptions would almost certainly be an act of "jihadist" terrorism?

But I prefaced that question on five assumptions, four of which (all but he last) were being widely reported at the time; I wrote, "let's assume for sake of argument that the following reports are correct." (I even italicized it.) Here are the assumptions:

1. The main shooter was Major Malik Nadal Hasan (or Nidal Malik Hasan -- I've seen both versions);
2. Hasan was a recent convert to Islam;
3. Hasan was "violently hostile" to the deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;
4. That the two persons currently being held in custody are, in fact, collaborators in the massacre.
5. That the two in custody were also recent converts to Islam or radical Moslems.

As it turned out, most of the original assumptions for sake of argument were wrong:

• Yes, it seems pretty solid that Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter.
• But he was not a recent convert to Islam -- he is a lifelong Moslem who is now a radical Moslem (I don't know whether he has always been radicalized or whether it's a recent event).
• He was certainly "violently hostile" to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
• But the two people briefly held in custody were not collaborators and were released.
• I don't have any information whether they were Moslems, so let's call this unconfirmed.

However, my point not only stands but is bolstered. How? How can my point become stronger when 60% of the underpinning of premises on which it was based has been kicked down?

Should be obvious: Because each discarded assumption has been replaced by even more solid evidence that Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood was not senseless and motive-free, but was in fact an act of putative jihad.

We now know about Hasan's repeated anti-American, anti-infidel outbursts, his justification of suicide bombings, his incomprehension that American Moslems could possibly fight against their "brothers" in Afghanistan and Iraq. We now learn that he posted jihadist messages on the internet, that he had contacts with a radical imam who preached at the mosque that the 9/11 butchers attended, and even that he evidently attempted to contact al-Qaeda.

He was not a recent convert, but he was a radical jihadist. He evidently acted alone when he committed mass murder, but at least two witnesses insist he shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he did it.

Let's just jack up the question and run the new, more careful reporting under it in place of the discarded assumptions; when you finish tightening the bolts, the same question is even more urgent now than it was four days ago.

And now we appear to have an answer: No; Barack H. Obama cannot bring himself to call this brutish massacre "an act of 'jihadist' terrorism." It simply is not in his nature, nor his best interests -- which do not seem to coincide with the best interests of the United States.

Honesty may be the best policy, but it's not Obama's policy.

Technically, McChrystal had asked for 80,000 troops but that was apparently a “throwaway” number that he never expected to get and wasn’t even the option he himself recommended. [...] Read the rest »

As an historic day closes in Berlin, a reader asked me to post this excerpt from the prologue of America Alone, which to be honest had clear slipped my mind. But he seems to think it helps explain how we got from Reagan to Obama, and from the Berlin Wall to the Fort Hood media stonewall. So here it is:

There were two forces at play in the late 20th century: in the eastern bloc, the collapse of Communism; in the west, the collapse of confidence. One of the most obvious refutations of Francis Fukuyama’s famous thesis The End Of History - written at the victory of liberal pluralist democracy over Soviet Communism - is that the victors didn’t see it as such. Americans - or at least non-Democrat-voting Americans - may talk about “winning” the Cold War but the French and the Belgians and Germans and Canadians don’t. Very few British do. These are all formal Nato allies - they were, technically, on the winning side against a horrible tyranny few would wish to live under themselves. In Europe, there was an initial moment of euphoria: it was hard not be moved by the crowds sweeping through the Berlin Wall, especially as so many of them were hot-looking Red babes eager to enjoy a Carlsberg or Stella Artois with even the nerdiest running dog of imperialism. But, when the moment faded, pace Fukuyama, there was no sense on the Continent that our Big Idea had beaten their Big Idea ...and, with the end of the Soviet existential threat, the enervation of the west only accelerated.

---

Finally got a chance to read today’s “paper.” “The paper” is what people in my neighborhood call the NYTimes.  I ask, “what paper?” just to annoy them.  They rarely get the joke.

I despise the Times, but I still read it. Fox Business’ David Asman won’t read it anymore, but I want to know what the MSM will focus on that day, and what my neighbors will spout. They do spout the Times. Constantly. Sometimes I suspect it’s the only thing they read, except for Lefty art publications.  I live in on the upper west side of New York City, in the neighborhood where NYTimes writers live.

Today’s paper was unusually breathless. Paul Krugman seemed civilized when I debated him, but now he sounds hysterical. If Krugman is this paranoid, Republicans must be doing something right:

Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous.

I guess it was not ominous when similar signs were shown at anti-Bush protests.

Krugman continues:

[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit… passions of the angry right…… feed the base’s frenzy … the country could become effectively ungovernable … the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.

The Tea Party movement is bad for America? Not a chance.  It’s about time that there are protests against government’s grotesque spending.  Maybe America needs protests to fight the crusaders at the Times. Just two days after the House passed its health care bill, the Times “news” pages were pushing for Cap and Trade:

Though advocates insist that transforming energy policy will bring economic and environmental benefits alike, rising joblessness has amplified attacks from critics who deride Mr. Obama’s energy policy as a big-government “cap and tax” plan.

It sure is big-government. So then did they quote one of those “critics?” No:

"People really need to step back and get away from the quick-hit political slogans,” said Senator John Kerry, right, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has taken a leadership role on the issue. “We’re looking at an enormous opportunity, and we need to grab it."

Oh, yes, Senator Kerry. A fine American. And so open-minded.

Mr. Kerry’s partnership with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, signals the possibility of bipartisan cooperation.

No Republicans were quoted, but the Times did interview one conservative:

"People who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska. “As you turn on the lights, the electricity will cost more."

No kidding. But the Times writer was quick to let Senator Kerry say that prices will fall, not rise:

Mr. Kerry said Mr. Nelson was “wrong about that in terms of the net impact on states and on individuals.” He added, “While the unit price of gas or the unit price of electricity might go up individually, the overall costs of an individual at home and their total consumption will go down because of energy efficiencies.”

Oh yes, those miraculous “efficiencies.”

The Times also found room for a four column story on the one Republican who supports the Health Bill, and six columns bemoaning a bill that would forbid needle exchange programs from exchanging needles within a thousand feet of places where children gather. The bill actually offers federal money to the exchanges, for the first time. Federal money isn’t necessary, since Susan Sarandon and other Hollywood advocates could fund all America’s needle-exchange programs—not to mention abortion clinics-- without forcing all taxpayers to pay for something that many find abhorrent. But that “government force” argument is not mentioned by the Times.  The “report” is mostly complaints that the bill is too harsh:

Advocates and organizations including the N.A.A.C.P. are lobbying Congress to kill the 1,000-foot provisions. The promise of federal money could not come at a better time, these officials say… In Maine, which officials say has one of the highest rates of prescription drug abuse per capita in the country and is grappling with a recent influx of heroin, AIDS activists worry that they will receive less money just as their client base is growing…

I’m glad the “newspaper of record” has more competition these days.

Seymour Hersh has an 8 page article in the New Yorker which basically says that after nearly a decade of trying and despite any assurances from Washington, the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are far from secure. The wheedling, perpetually offended and self-righteous nature of America’s ally is evident on every page alongside with Washington’s self-deception to provide a Laurel and Hardy style tragi-comedy which would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. Here are some highlights from from the article:

In an actual crisis, would the Pakistanis give an American team direct access to their arsenal? An adviser to the Pentagon on counterinsurgency said that some analysts suspected that the Pakistani military had taken steps to move elements of the nuclear arsenal “out of the count”—to shift them to a storage facility known only to a very few—as a hedge against mutiny or an American or Indian effort to seize them. …

Zardari offered some advice to Barack Obama: instead of fretting about nuclear security in Pakistan … You should help us get conventional weapons,” he said. “It’s a balance-of-power issue.” …

Leslie H. Gelb, a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “I don’t think there’s any kind of an agreement we can count on. The Pakistanis have learned how to deal with us, and they understand that if they don’t tell us what we want to hear we’ll cut off their goodies.” Gelb added, “In all these years, the C.I.A. never built up assets, but it talks as if there were ‘access.’ I don’t know if Obama understands that the Agency doesn’t know what it’s talking about.”

The former high-level Bush Administration official was just as blunt. “If a Pakistani general is talking to you about nuclear issues, and his lips are moving, he’s lying,” he said. “The Pakistanis wouldn’t share their secrets with anybody, and certainly not with a country that, from their point of view, used them like a Dixie cup and then threw them away.”

Tarar, who retired in 1995 and has a son in the Army, believed—as did many Pakistani military men—that the American campaign to draw Pakistan deeper into the war against the Taliban would backfire. “ The Americans are trying to rent out their war to us,” he said. If the Obama Administration persists, “there will be an uprising here, and this corrupt government will collapse. Every Pakistani will then be his own nuclear bomb—a suicide bomber,” Tarar said….

I flew to New Delhi after my stay in Pakistan and met with two senior officials from the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s national intelligence agency. (Of course, as in Pakistan, no allegation about the other side should be taken at face value.)
“Our worries are about the nuclear weapons in Pakistan,” one of the officials said. “Not because we are worried about the mullahs taking over the country; we’re worried about those senior officers in the Pakistan Army who are Caliphates”—believers in a fundamentalist pan-Islamic state. “We know some of them and we have names,” he said. “We’ve been watching colonels who are now brigadiers. These are the guys who could blackmail the whole world”—that is, by seizing a nuclear weapon. …

Others are less sure. “Nuclear weapons are only as safe as the people who handle them,” Pervez Hoodbhoy, an eminent nuclear physicist in Pakistan, said in a talk last summer at a Nation and Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy forum in New York. For more than two decades, Hoodbhoy said, “the Pakistan Army has been recruiting on the basis of faithfulness to Islam. As a consequence, there is now a different character present among Army officers and ordinary soldiers. There are half a dozen scenarios that one can imagine.” There was no proof either that the most dire scenarios would be realized or that the arsenal was safe, he said.

The long and short of Hersh’s article — sensational as always — is that nobody is quite sure how “safe” the Pakistani nukes are. “A senior Obama Administration official brought up Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Sunni organization whose goal is to establish the Caliphate. ‘They’ve penetrated the Pakistani military and now have cells in the Army,’ he said.” The fact that Hersh could repeat many assessments, some of them wildly conflicting with each other is an indication that a lot of variables are in play. This suggests there is some probability greater than zero a scenario could come in true in which weapons could be taken over by a Pakistani “Major Hasan” and that the contingencies planned for the event would be just as effective as the recent response to the disturbance at Fort Hood.

The first decade of the 21st century is ending on a scene of uncertainty. The old comforting verities can no longer be taken for granted. The confident dreams which characterized the turn of the millenium are tempered by the idea that it may all vanish in an atomic cloud unleashed in the desire to return to the eighth century. America, which was once the sole superpower in the world, has unaccountably taken a vacation from the world. Perhaps not so unaccountably, but even Europeans, having long expressed their desire for a diminished America, are beginning to worry about the “missing President” — nowhere to be found in the 20th anniversary commemoration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, nowhere to be found in Afghan policy, apparently indifferent to a resurgent Russia, impotent in the Middle East and on passively good terms with every dictator and authoritarian in the world.

Joe Loudon who was in Berlin on the day the Wall describes what has changed. History ended in 1989, but not quite in the way people thought. Fundamentally this generation of Americans and Europeans lost the will to pay for anything while its appetite for everything remained unabated. The eventual result was Barack Obama. In the next few years the heirs of the victory of the Cold War will get to live out the adage that one ought to be careful what one wants in case those wishes come true.

Now we have a new face of America. We elected Barak Obama, and he does not feel that moral duty to you as Reagan did, at least not enough to stand up to the shrill American voices that hate the American military. So he will not be there on November 9th to Celebrate the Fall of the Berlin Wall. I do not think he sees it the way you do. He will also not participate in the festivities on the campus of my College. Westminster College, in my State of Missouri, is where the great Allied leader Winston Churchill gave the Iron Curtain Speech. He told the World how millions of our fellow human beings were being stuffed into the cage, the very cage I was privileged to help dismantle. He had a way with words. On the campus of another American College he gave his shortest speech “Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give in.” But I digress.

Our new President believes that you are on your own. As the KGB agent-turned-billionaire, puppet master of the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin conducts war games of an assault on Poland, Obama has decided to tear down the American missiles from Poland. We knew that he cared less as he promised to remove our protection from the Iraqi people. 150 of them were slaughtered just this week. He really wants to find a way out of Afghanistan and pull our soldiers out just as you are pulling your U.N. workers out right now.

So my new President will not be there with you, like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were there for you. He has other priorities. I really wish I could be there to celebrate with you. Unfortunately, with the passing of time, I have five children, our economy is bad, and I too, have other priorities. So I am sorry that my President, the American face to the World will not be there for you. I feel just a little better knowing that you asked America to give him to you. I hope you like him.

---

Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5

I’m a little surprised Sarahcuda hasn’t gone after him for this. [...] Read the rest »

And that’s the drill: concern over crimes that have never happened, as opposed to the terror that has. So, denying the role militant Islam played in the Fort Hood atrocity is like staring at a...

View Original Post

You're welcome. MARTIN: But your candidates got to talk to them. One of the criticisms I’ve always had is Republicans — white Republicans — have been scared of black folks. STEELE: You’re absolutely right. I mean I’ve been in the...

Andrea Elliott’s front page article in the November 9 New York Times played up the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military and how their “service...is more necessary and more complicated than ever before,” but gave the false impression that a Medal of Honor recipient named near the end of her piece was a Muslim himself, when he was actually Catholic.

Elliott spent much of her article, “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in the U.S. Military” (which appeared above the fold on the front page of the print edition of the Times), detailing the concerns of “many Muslim soldiers and their commanders...[who] fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult” after Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. She later noted that “[w]hatever his possible motives, the emerging portrait of Major Hasan’s life in the military casts light on some of the struggles and frustrations felt by other Muslims in the services.”

Near the end of the article, Elliott changed the subject ever so slightly that it might have gone unnoticed. The reporter quoted Captain Erich Rahman, an Iraq war veteran and Bronze Star winner: “Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman...He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq.  Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Elliott’s specific attention to Muslims in the military and their “struggles and frustrations” for most of her article, followed by this passing reference to Monsoor (pictured above, who was actually a Petty Officer, 2nd class), certainly gives the impression, despite the use of the “Arab-American” label, that the Medal of Honor recipient was a Muslim. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth.

The Navy’s biography of Monsoor, who died in 2006 after he jumped on a grenade to save the lives of fellow Seals, notes that the lieutenant “attended Catholic Mass devotionally before operations.” Another article written in tribute to the valiant officer cited his aunt Patricia Monsoor, who recalled that he “went to confession frequently.”

Elliott, by covertly changing the subject to “Arab Americans,” committed a journalistic sleight-of-hand, and implied that it was somehow equivalent to “Muslim.” If a conservative had made such an assumption, it might have been attributed to backwards stereotyping.

[H/t: Andrew Cline at National Review Online, NB intern Mike Sargent]

[Update, 10:15 am Eastern, 10 November: The New York Times updated the article at the link above and included the following correction at the end: Earlier versions of this article misstated the religion and rank of Michael A. Monsoor and the act he performed that earned him the Medal of Honor. I’ve also made minor corrections to the blog post above, such as changing the phrase “Medal of Honor winner” to “Medal of Honor recepient” and clarifying he was a Petty Officer.]

Alternate headline: “Rabidly pro-choice president sides with pro-choicers.” [...] Read the rest »

As we celebrate today the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Empire, let us take a moment to remember the bitter legacy of Communism, based on an ideology drawn up not by men who studied human nature, but by an intellectual who studied law and [...]

Reporting for CBS Sunday Morning, correspondent Mark Phillips marked the 20th anniversary of the fall the Berlin Wall by noting the economic difficulty East Germany has faced in the aftermath: “It still isn’t easy for many. East German industry without government subsidy could not compete. The economy shrank by an estimated 50%.”

Phillips mourned the loss of state-run industries after the oppressed nation was freed from decades of communist oppression: “The eastern landscape is littered with the ruins of former state-supported enterprise. A million people have gone west looking for work.”

Earlier in the report, Phillips credited those responsible for the wall’s collapse: “The main players on that night 20 years ago were the people of East Berlin....But it was the behind-the-scenes players who really determined events that night, mostly by doing nothing. Then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had refused to back the desperate GDR regime. Then President George Bush refused to gloat as the wall came down. Then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl went on to become the leader of a reunited Germany.” Ronald Reagan slipped Phillips’ mind.

Phillips sounded nearly identical to reporters at the time of the wall’s collapse. On the March 16, 1990 CBS Evening News, correspondent Bob Simon wondered: “...what about East Germany’s eighty symphony orchestras, bound to lose some subsidies, or the whole East German system, which covered everyone in a security blanket from day care to health care, from housing to education?” He concluded: “Some people are beginning to express, if ever so slightly, nostalgia for that Berlin Wall.”

Here is a full transcript of the Sunday Morning segment:

10:13AM

CHARLES OSGOOD: Berlin residents are remembering where they were 20 years ago tomorrow, when the infamous wall began to come down. This picture by journalist Peter Turnley is from a photo essay you can find on our Sunday Morning website. As for Berlin today, here’s Mark Phillips.

MARK PHILLIPS: The anniversary of the fall of the wall may not be until tomorrow but the party has already started. A U2 concert used the Brandenburg Gate as the convenient back drop. When the wall ran through it, the gate sat in the middle of a divided city and was the symbol of a divided world. Now the search lights are merely visual effects piercing the night sky. Not scanning no man’s land for East Germans trying to escape to the west.

The main players on that night 20 years ago were the people of East Berlin who, after months of mounting protests, finally called the bluff of the East German authorities. But it was the behind-the-scenes players who really determined events that night, mostly by doing nothing. Then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had refused to back the desperate GDR regime. Then President George Bush refused to gloat as the wall came down. Then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl went on to become the leader of a reunited Germany, an outcome neither he nor any of the others had planned but one they now say could not have happened without them.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: I might harbor a single hope, it would be that future generations might look back to the moment when mankind really got it right.

BENJAMIN WALTER: I remember my grandma calling. There is a never-ending convoy of cars going to the west side. What is going on?

PHILLIPS: Benjamin Walter was 14 when the wall fell. He didn’t leave. He stayed in East Berlin, where he’s carved out a nice career in IT marketing and marvels at the changes in the life he might have led.

WALTER: Maybe I would have escaped, left the country, leaving, working in some rundown East German company wouldn’t have been easy.

PHILLIPS: It still isn’t easy for many. East German industry without government subsidy could not compete. The economy shrank by an estimated 50%. The eastern landscape is littered with the ruins of former state-supported enterprise. A million people have gone west looking for work. Many of them may have come here this weekend to Berlin’s east side gallery, formally known as the Berlin Wall. Part of the commemoration of the coming down of the wall has been to refurbish the parts of it that are left. Some of the original paintings are being redone for the occasion. An ugly interlude in history literally being painted over. And 20 years later, another party like no other about to be relived.

OSGOOD: CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips in Berlin.

What is missing from these two articles?

The first is from the Associated Press, commemorating the anniversary of the historic day when the Berlin wall came a-tumblin' down:

Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev crossed a former fortified border on Monday to cheers of "Gorby! Gorby!" as a throng of grateful Germans recalled the night 20 years ago that the Berlin Wall gave way to their desire for freedom and unity....

Merkel, who grew up in East Germany and was one of thousands to cross that night, recalled that "before the joy of freedom came, many people suffered."

She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.

"We always knew that something had to happen there so that more could change here," she said.

"You made this possible -- you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect," she told Gorbachev in front of several hundred people gathered in light drizzle on the bridge over railway lines.

And here is the New York Times' take on the same meeting:

Mrs. Merkel’s symbolic walk across the Bornholmer Strasse bridge, accompanied by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, and Lech Walesa, the former shipyard worker who led a fight against Moscow-backed Communism in Poland, came as Berlin prepared for an evening of celebration to mark the moments on Nov. 9, 1989, when the wall began to crumble....

She said that a “new generation is growing up who are embedded in Europe, for whom the world is much more open than for our generation.”

“That is worth fighting for,” she said. The bridge was packed shoulder to shoulder with people, and the biggest cheer came when Mrs. Merkel thanked Mr. Gorbachev for the reforming attitude he brought to the Soviet leadership. The crowd chanted, “Gorby, Gorby, Gorby....”

During the celebrations, a long line of 1,000 oversized painted dominoes are to be toppled along the route of the wall as a symbol of its collapse in the heady days of 1989 when dictatorships tumbled across eastern Europe. German television said Mr. Walesa would push over the first domino, reflecting Poland’s lead in Eastern Europe’s campaign against Communism.

What is missing? How about even a single mention of the true architects of the fall of the Berlin wall? The wall was not brought down by Mikhail Gorbachev; he desperately wanted to preserve the Soviet Empire... all of it. Nor was it brought down by Lech Walesa, who wanted only for Polish authorities to allow trade unions and strikes in that country.

German citizens did not just wake up one day and begin dismantling the wall, out of the blue. And American protesters were not protesting against the Berlin wall in 1989 -- they were too busy protesting against the efforts to dismantle it!

Forgotten -- or more accurately, airbrushed out of the picture in an American instance of "the Commisar Vanishes" -- are the two men who actually wrought that change in the face of strident, almost hysterical opposition by virtually the entire world: Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan. Neither receives so much as a mention in either article -- nor in the articles by the Washington Post or Reuters.

Only the Wall Street Journal reluctantly brings up Reagan, almost as an embarassment; he sneaks in through the back door in a single throw-away line in the eleventh paragraph of a 15-graf story. And the reference is preceded by the following expurgated history:

Ms. Merkel, then a 35-year-old physicist living in East Berlin, was among those who walked through the open gate into democratic West Berlin that night. On Monday she led former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and Lech Walesa, leader of Poland's Solidarity movement, across the bridge, through a chaotic throng that Ms. Merkel said reminded her of the real event 20 years ago.

The chancellor thanked both men for their contributions to the democratic revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in 1989. The independent trade union Solidarity challenged Communist rulers who claimed to speak for the workers, while Mr. Gorbachev "bravely let things happen" in Poland, East Germany and other former Soviet satellites, Ms. Merkel said to cheers from onlookers. For 28 years the Berlin Wall stopped East Germans from visiting or escaping to West Berlin, an enclave of the democratic, capitalist West inside the Communist bloc during the Cold War. The fortified and guarded Wall fell to crowds of ordinary citizens 20 years ago after an East German official bungled the announcement of new travel regulations, giving media the impression that the border lay open with immediate effect.

While Germans have celebrated that happy accident in recent days and weeks, Ms. Merkel's government has been at pains to commemorate the wider context of reforms, mass protests and democratic revolutions across Eastern Europe in 1989.

Symbolically, Mr. Walesa and former Hungarian Communist reformer Miklos Nemeth were due to tip over the first of the decorative dominoes on Monday night.

Solidarity led the first non-purely-Communist government in the Soviet bloc following its victory in June 1989 elections. Mr. Nemeth, as Hungarian prime minister, opened his country's border with Austria in May 1989, a move that allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West and set off the unravelling of the Iron Curtain that had divided Cold War Europe.

Yeah... that's how I remember it. (One must bear in mind that the only portion of the WSJ that is in any sense "conservative" -- is the Opinion section. The rest could be written by Reuters, and frequently is.)

The Los Angeles Times does deign to mention Reagan, at least; but it saves him for an opinion piece -- in which James Mann of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies argues, in a rather snide and smug tone, that Reagan really had no intention of bringing down the wall or dismantling the Soviet Union; rather, he was anxious to buddy up to Gorbachev and preserve the evil empire, so we could do business with it. (Mr. Mann makes Reagan out to be more dovish than Jimmy Carter.)

Confused? Here's a sample:

But how significant was the speech, really? How important was its seemingly defiant tone in reuniting Berlin and "winning" the Cold War? [Note the scare quotes]

To many American conservatives, the answer to those questions is simple: Reagan stared down the Soviet Union. And the Berlin Wall speech stands as the dramatic symbol of Reagan's challenge and triumph.

But those who say this ignore the actual history and context of the speech. In fact, Reagan's address served the purpose of shoring up public support as he moved to upgrade American relations with the Soviet Union. It was Reagan's diplomacy with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, bitterly opposed at the time by his conservative former supporters, that did the most to create the climate in which the Cold War could end.

The Cold War just... ended. For some inexplicable reason.

It's an amazingly tendentious opinion piece, the only purpose of which is to pooh-pooh the obviously silly idea that Reagan had any animus towards the USSR; rather, all his blustery rhetoric was just cover for a Kissengerian realpolitik. Reagan just wanted to improve our bargaining position -- he never meant for the Soviet Union to fall! One gains the impression that Ronald Reagan might even have been horrified at the loss of a negotiating partner...

Mr. Mann's thesis is a patent absurdity, and I don't care if the entire Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies gives it a hearty thumbs-up. Mr. Mann argues that Reagan spent four decades fighting against the evil that was (and may yet be again) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and then he abruptly turned a corner in the late 1980s and started liking them, trying to prop them up as long as he could. Mr. Mann is an idiot -- but a useful one for today's American Left. He is not literally unintelligent, in the sense of a Joe Biden or a Barack H. Obama; but by his anti-Right animus, he has allowed the Left to make a fool of him.

Reagan himself famously said that if he succeeded in his goals (one of which was the destruction of the Soviet Union), he didn't care who got the credit. But we, the living, cannot afford the luxury of such magnanimity. We cannot allow the American and Euro-Left to hijack the credit for ending the Cold War, when they were the very ones who tried mightily to perpetuate it, and indeed tried their crooked best to ensure victory for the other side.

Why not? Because the same Left is today beavering away at restoring that same evil empire, this time under the tender mercies of Russia's Vladimir Putin and his sock puppet, Dmitri Medvedev; under the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il, in North Korea; under Hu Jintau in China; under Oogo Chavez in Venezuela and los bros Castro in Cuba... and especially under the leveling regime of the United Nations, which treats socialist, totalitarian states that impose tyranny with the same respect as they treat free, independent states that promote individualism and liberty. Hey, who are we to say which is best?

Reagan and John Paul II were not "commisars," and we must not allow them to vanish from the picture. They stood proud and strong for clear principles of freedom, democracy, self-determination, individual responsibility and accountability, and Capitalism -- the great marriage of liberty and economics. Above all, both men, following in Thomas Jefferson's footsteps, had "sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (Of course, Jefferson would have listed the Church itself among those tyrannies.)

It is long past time for us anti-Leftists to take back the Right.

Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Somehow she manages to give a "shout out" to Obama for tearing down other kinds of walls, though.

The New York Times’s November 5 “Political Points” podcast recited a full 30-second excerpt from Gail Collins’s Wednesday column blaming not Obama, but bad Democratic candidates, for the party’s huge losses in governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey.

The paper’s chief political reporter Adam Nagourney agreed that New Jersey and Virginia weren’t necessarily predictive. Four minutes in, Adam Nagourney emulated Collins by also throwing the two losing Democrats under the bus, while repeatedly warning people not to overstate the results:

Remember that we’re talking about here are two states, not a lot of voters, one congressional district in upstate New York. Micro-wise, one thing we do want to pay attention to here is, and again, don’t overstate this -- independent voters who backed President Obama in Virginia and New Jersey last time went to the Republican gubernatorial candidates this time. Now, does that mean that they didn’t, that they’ll vote for, you know, whoever votes against Obama in 2012, or for Democrats, or Republicans congressional, for Republicans next year? No. I don’t think so.

Second thing is, obviously the sort of big coalition that President Obama put together last year -- first-time voters, African-American voters, young voters -- I don’t think showed up in either of those states. But you know what? Is that really surprising, that they didn’t show up to vote for Creigh Deeds or Jon Corzine? So, my only point -- with all due respect to Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine -- my only point is let’s be careful about over-interpreting this, in any way.

Nagourney certainly didn’t show much hesitation about over-interpreting a special congressional election in favor of Democrats in an August 2006 story, an election actually won by Republican Brian Bilbray, albeit in a race closer than anticipated. Nagourney's front-page story hailed the Republican win as a resounding victory...for the Democrats: "Narrow Victory by G.O.P. Signals Fall Problems."

I’m giving you two versions, the unedited BBC transmission and the censored version that ran on Russian state television (which omits the passage about the Declaration of Independence but not, curiously, the one about the Iron Curtain), thus proving that the old Soviet spirit is alive and kicking. [...] Read the rest »

I see where Steele is taking this, but the byte is going to be used to hurt his cause more than help it.

ABC News:

President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

---

At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer offered commentary on the cause of the mass shooting at Fort Hood: “That doctor [Major Nidal Hasan] should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals....sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.”

Schieffer went on to argue: “And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.” In similar fashion, Schieffer “shuffled off” the responsibility of an overly politically correct media that continually denounces profiling of criminal suspects or terrorists.

Earlier in the broadcast, Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton: “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?”

Speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, Schieffer referred to Hasan’s Islamic extremism, but countered: “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:55AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, the President has asked the nation not to jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, which is usually good advice, but it’s also what government officials generally say when the government fouls up.

Good advice or not, I am jumping to an obvious conclusion. This should not have happened. That doctor should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals. A government psychiatrist with bad performance ratings who has been trying to get out of the Army and who had been saying what Dr. Hasan had been saying about the war on terrorism should not have been shipped off to Fort Hood to give grief counseling.

What do you suppose he was telling the soldiers? That after what they had done, they ought to feel bad?

Certainly no officer with his record would have been allowed to lead soldiers into combat. But sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.

And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.

Investigators confirm now that someone by his name had been posting messages on the Internet about how suicide bombers are as heroic as American soldiers who fall on grenades to save their comrades. But the investigators say it is not clear if Dr. Hasan actually wrote those messages. Based on what we found out so far, my question is, do you suppose anyone has even asked him?

My two cents: The most widely accepted definition of a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets non-combatants with violence for political purposes. The shooter at Fort Hood, by contrast, was targeting uniformed combatants. In that sense, he was not a terrorist. So what was he? A traitor, a man who wore his country’s uniform, and killed his fellow countrymen in the service of his country’s enemies.

Is there a reason we no longer use the word “traitor”? Maybe it’s time to reintroduce it into our vocabulary?

There is this complicating factor: Soldiers acting as peace-keepers, e.g. the U.S. Marines in Beirut who were suicide-bombed by Hezbollah in 1983, are considered non-combatants. So attacking them does count as terrorism.

By contrast, the troops at Fort Hood had been (or were to be) fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. They were combatants, even if they were not on a conventional battlefield.

I think our working assumption has to be that what took place at Fort Hood was an act of treachery and asymmetrical warfare, an act -- in the eyes of the perpetrator -- of jihad on behalf of Islamist terrorists. 

---

View Original Post

On the syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, over the weekend, conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin was mocked by Chris Matthews for playing to the "wingnuts" at a Capitol Hill rally. Before running a clip of Levin, MSNBC host broke down the new GOP coalition as "regular Republicans," "energized conservatives," and "the wingnuts!" and added: "Talk show host Mark Levin spoke to all of them!"

The following exchange was aired on the November 8 edition of the The Chris Matthews Show [MP3 audio clip here]:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tuesday's election results gave Republicans a big boost. A year from now they hope their loose coalition will unite to beat a lot of Democrats. What's that coalition? Well it's regular Republicans, people that have been Republicans all their lives. It’s also energized conservatives. People philosophically opposed to what they see as a creeping big government. Third - it's people just upset about the economy and the loss of jobs. And fourth - it's the wingnuts! Talk show host Mark Levin spoke to all of them at that rally at the Capitol this week.

MARK LEVIN: They want to control you. They want to control your children, your parents, your doctor, your nurse. And the bottom line is they want to play God and who decides who lives and who dies!

MATTHEWS: Wow! Well that angry voice, Andrew, seems to be grabbing a lot of people on the right and the center, politically right now.

ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: Yeah I mean I’m trying to understand it as best I can. I think it is, in some ways, a response to the Bush years as well. I mean conservatives have to suffer for eight years as Bush governed essentially as, in their words, a socialist. I mean he dramatically increased debt. He, he put in an entitlement program in health care that makes Obama look like Eisenhower. I mean the Medicare Prescription Drug Act? Much more expensive than anything-

MATTHEWS: So this is pent up anger against-

SULLIVAN: It’s pent up anger against Bush and the fact that conservatism was destroyed under the last administration that is now able to vent itself against Obama. Unfortunately all the principled reasons to oppose Bush have been kind of lost in this, this, this cultural and social hatred of Obama, which is the worst part of the right. In other words you have the best part of the right, which is, can we please get back to fiscal sanity? Can we please restrain spending?

MATTHEWS: Your part of the right.

SULLIVAN: Yeah! What I, what I believe in. I’m encouraged, in a way-

MATTHEWS: Right.

SULLIVAN: That is alive and well. At the same time it’s, it’s so combined with this, I mean, just culturally horrible, ugly stuff.

Look upon my mighty works and donate. But enough of me talking about myself. How about you talk about me for a while? There is a fallacy in the theory of evolution, often cautioned against, to imagine evolution as...

I recently attended an event at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Museum celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The event titled: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Wall:...

View Original Post

Wanda Sykes debuted her new comedy show Saturday on Fox. That critics met the show with reviews of varying degrees of mediocrity is hardly surprising, as Sykes simply recycled years of Bush-bashing and Obamamania into her monologue, which set the mood for the show.

Sykes is well known in political circles for proclaiming "I hope his kidneys fail" in reference to Rush Limbaugh at this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner. She went on to make fun of Limbaugh's former drug addiction, liken him to terrorists, and call for him to be waterboarded.

So it came as little surprise that Sykes kicked off her new show with attacks on Ann Coulter, discussions of environmentally-friendly sex toys, accusations of racism leveled against Rush Limbuagh, and an anti-Bush, Obama-crazed diatribe (video and partial transcript below the fold).

Can someone explain something to me? Cause I passed out the other night - I mean I went to sleep - when I woke up, people were mad at Obama! And I thought, ‘Did I miss something?’

Did Obama start two illegal wars? Did he fly over a flood zone and just wave? Did he torture detainees in a secret prison? Did he start illegally tapping phones? Did he alienate the world and squander a budget surplus? Because if he did any of that, we need to impeach that jackass.

He’s only been in office ten months, so what exactly has Obama done to piss everybody off? Nothing! People are going crazy calling him a Fascist. These people don’t even know what a Fascist is. When you say things like, ‘We’re gonna vote that Fascist out of office!’, you really sound dumb. When was the last time a Fascist got voted out of office? They usually stick around...

How do you get upset about the President of the United States encouraging kids to study hard? You know that was probably the first time these parents even paid attention to what was going on in their kids’ school...

This week on Fox News Sunday Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama, saying that he has a radical agenda and is a little boy who is driven by his out-of-this-world ego. Hmm. Sounds to be like the pot calling the kettle the uppity negro.

I can’t believe people are blaming Obama for the mess Bush left. Bush just pees all over everything. Things are soaking wet, and people are looking at Obama as if he just zipped up his fly...

See what the problem is – the Obamas are way too classy to get all up in people’s faces. So that’s why I’m here. So you know what – I hereby appoint myself the President’s ‘tell people where to go and what to kiss Czar'.

Wonderful. The class and originality are simply stunning.

Apparently critics were not aching for another bastion of left-wing thought on broadcast television (Family Guy will do just fine). Media Life Magazine said it all in its headline: " 'The Wanda Sykes Show': Not Funny". Entertainment Weekly said Sykes was "trying too hard for too few laughs". USA Today claimed the show "lacks spark".

And the UK Telegraph, which called the show a "perplexing presentation masquerading as hip," noted with curiosity that "this must be the first time in American history that a television 'talk show host' has announced her purpose as the defender of a sitting president."

Indeed, while it is a tried and true comedic method to criticize those in power, few comedians--until November 2008 anyway--had much interest in defending a sitting president. It is much easier--and funnier--to bash politicians for the silly things that they do and say. A performer crosses the line from pure purveyor of the comedic arts to a political pundit with some jokes under his belt when he begins flacking for his favorite elected official (see Stewart, Jon; Colbert, Stephen).

Sykes obviously does not like conservatives, so it is to be expected that her talk show would focus on insulting them--especially give her penchant for ad hominem attacks. But if that is all she has to offer, she won't last long in her new role as talk show host.

Sometimes – no, scratch that, many times –  it is difficult to imagine a caricature of the media.

Tom Brokaw made an appearance on this morning's edition of Morning Joe this morning, plugging his interview with the former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev.  Brokaw was, of course, reporting from the historic Brandenburg Gate this morning to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The Brew Crew were gathered in their studio with national security expert Dr. Richard Haas, discussing such weighty subjects as the American response to the fall of communism, the geopolitical advantages and disadvantages of that event, and so on.  And which of these subjects did Brokaw use to segue into the subject of his interview?

None.  Instead, Brokaw, the constantly prostrate Gorbachev apologist, chose to highlight Mikhail Gorbachev's approval of President Barack Obama - and his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tom, you spoke with Mikhail Gorbachev. What did he tell you?

TOM BROKAW: I think that he shared that judgment. He thought that we have missed some opportunities to have a common security architecture, as he described it. He also was very eager to say that he agrees with the decision of the Nobel committee to give the Peace Prize to Barack Obama. I think Mikhail Gorbachev sees Barack Obama, as he saw himself, trying to bring change to America and to the world. So let's listen to what Mikhail Gorbachev had to say about the Nobel Peace Prize and President Obama.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV: When he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought, well, the people on the Nobel committee, they really see very far because this President needs support. This president needs incentive. And so it's a well-deserved prize.

This is not so much a jump as it is a veritable pole-vault of the media credibility shark.

The media have long tried to paint Mikhail Gorbachev counter to Ronald Reagan as the true statesman responsible for the end of the Cold War.  This, however, is a new low in the area of undeserved awards.  Here we have Mikhail Gorbachev, falsely hailed by the media as the man who ended the Cold War, offering justification for another undeserved award to another leftist world leader.

And this is to say nothing of this bit:

I think Mikhail Gorbachev sees Barack Obama, as he saw himself, trying to bring change to America and to the world.

Perhaps lost on Brokaw is the fact that Gorbachev sought to mend, not end, Communism, and in the process helped to accelerate the demise of the Soviet system. Comparing the president to a leader that brought his government to disintegration and his economy to collapse is a dubious honor at best.

That's right. In a four page report from ABC News titled, "Tens of Thousands Celebrate 20th Anniversary of Berlin Wall's Collapse," Ronald Reagan is not even mentioned. Not once. And from what I have read, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't mention President Reagan, and neither did President Obama in his taped message. I hope I end up being wrong about that, but I kind of doubt that I am.

Good grief. 

Two-and-a-half years before Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim medical doctor, murdered 13 at Fort Hood in Texas in what more-and-more looks like a jihadist terrorist attack given his anti-American rants and ties to Islamic extremists, ABC's since-canceled Boston Legal drama ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.

A scene in the episode first aired on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 -- meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining obviously innocent men -- concluded with a released terror suspect being asked in courtroom about a colleague who had committed suicide to avoid the mistreatment: “Was your friend a terrorist?” The man replied with these words, dripping with disgust, which dramatically ended the scene: “No, he was a doctor.”

Audio: MP3 clip

The specifics were different than the situation at Fort Hood since in the ABC show the terror suspects had been held at Guantanamo Bay, but the ABC show accurately conveyed the liberal ethos that Muslims successful in U.S. society -- such as an officer in the U.S. Army -- should be beyond reproach and so it's uncouth to dare to explore their ideology.

From the September 25, 2007 MRC CyberAlert:

Nearly eight weeks before six medical doctors were arrested for their involvement in the late June terrorist attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow, ABC's Boston Legal drama -- which has its 90-minute season premiere tonight (Tuesday) -- aired an episode which ridiculed the idea a doctor could be a terrorist.

In the May 8 episode, titled "Guantanamo by the Bay," attorney "Alan Shore," played by James Spader, takes up the case of British citizen "Benyam Kallah" suing the government, oddly in state court, over Kallah's torture at the Guantanamo Bay facility after he was picked up in Afghanistan where he claims he was doing "humanitarian" work. On the witness stand, Kallah describes the torture and how a friend detained with him couldn't take the torture any longer and so committed suicide. Concluding the scene meant to show the silliness and incompetence of the military for detaining such obviously innocent men, Shore asked: "Was your friend a terrorist?" Kallah replied: "No, he was a doctor."

Pressed by the Massachusetts state court judge about jurisdictional questions, Shore launched into a political diatribe: "Okay. I realize the jurisdictional barriers are prohibitive but, your honor, we don't let the little things like the law stand in our way in this great country. The law, for example, recognizes the Geneva Convention but we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law has very strict regulations on domestic wiretapping and we say, 'the Hell with it.' The law says if you shoot somebody with a shotgun mistaking him for a quail you really should call the police."

Shore is victorious as the case is heard and the judge rejects the government's motion to dismiss the case.

At the very end of the show, "Denny Crane," a pompous and misinformed lawyer who is Hollywood's idea of a prejudiced and chauvinistic conservative, contends: "We would never be in Guantanamo if it weren't for Hillary Clinton." The reasoning of Crane, played by William Shatner: "Bill Clinton would never have lied in the deposition. He wouldn't have risked impeachment. So what if the sexual indiscretion [indecipherable] the public would have forgiven him. But Hillary! The reason he lied is because he was afraid Hillary would find out. That's why he was impeached. That's why Al Gore didn't win. And after all that impeachment scandal crap, the public would have elected any fool other than a Democrat."

On the attempted terrorist attacks in Britain in late June in which car bombs were discovered in London and a car exploded at the Glasgow airport, the Washington Post reported on July 8: "The eight suspects detained by police are highly educated and have overlapping family, work and school links. Six are foreign doctors or trainee doctors working in British hospitals; two of the doctors inquired about continuing their medical training in the United States."...

# Scene in court room (matches audio/video):

SHORE: Mr. Kallah, you've stated that you were tortured. Can you give us an example?

KALLAH, ON WITNESS STAND: I was beaten; repeatedly deprived of sleep. I was forced to wear a hood over my head, sometimes for days. I was sexually humiliated.

SHORE: How so?

KALLAH: I'd rather not go into it.

SHORE: And what else?

KALLAH: I was forced to lie in a fetal position, my eyes and my mouth duct taped. The worst part is that we felt it was forever. We we're never going to be released, never going to get a trial. One man, Ali, a friend, was arrested with me.

SHORE: What happened to your friend, sir.

KALLAH: Finally he couldn't take it. He hung himself.

SHORE: He committed suicide?

KALLAH: The Pentagon called it "manipulative self-injurious behavior: an act of asymmetric warfare engaged against the United States."

SHORE: Was your friend a terrorist?

KALLAH: No, he was a doctor.

Actually, he never says “some.” [...] Read the rest »

From the latest installment in the ongoing, What to do about Heidegger? debate:

At the same time scholars in disciplines as far flung as poetry and psychoanalysis would be obliged to reconsider their use of Heidegger’s ideas. Although Mr. Faye talks about the close connection between Heidegger and current right-wing extremist politics, left-wing intellectuals have more frequently been inspired by his ideas. Existentialism and postmodernism as well as attendant attacks on colonialism, atomic weapons, ecological ruin and universal notions of morality are all based on his critique of the Western cultural tradition and reason.

---

There are lessons in the Pentagon’s gender wars for anyone who doubts the power of political correctness in the military. The feminization of the military has been at the hands of military leaders with medals attesting to their physical bravery who surrendered in the face of liberal cultural warriors. In recent years, the military’s ranks have been ruthlessly patrolled for any sign of resistance to the brass’s gender-blind agenda. When official definitions of sexual harassment, for example, include expressing reservations about women in combat or making note of gender-normed scores in physical tests, officers and troops learn to keep their reservations to themselves. Kingsley Browne has a terrific piece recounting the injustices that have resulted from the military’s aggressive zero-tolerance policies with respect to gender integration. General Casey has now reiterated his zero tolerance for misgivings about “diversity.” Message received. Is it any more likely that a colleague would report the jihadist sentiments of an active-duty soldier today than a week ago? When General Casey would be fretting about “chilling effects” and “backlashes?”

---

 From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings. But federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, government officials said on Monday.

---

What General Casey said on Meet the Press was even worse: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.”

---

Read this post »

Ah... okay. But they also said they wouldn't vote for a bill that didn't contain abortion-funding, and they just did that. Ultimately they will pass the bill without the amendment and the supposed pro-life Democrats will just say "We don't...

It's not just health care that could endanger 2010 Democratic incumbents. As several recent news stories indicate, the Obama administration's environmental policies may also be putting Democrats in a vulnerable...

This week, we celebrate Veterans Day in the midst of war. [...] Read the rest »

On the issue of race in America there is something in the air. Shakespeare’s melancholy Dane might say it is the “scent of morning;” our president would call it a “teaching...

View Original Post

Wonder why the White House attack on the Fox News Channel (you know: "not a news network") failed? Well, besides the fact that not even the other networks thought it was right, it might be because Fox often commits actual journalism.

Witness Bill O'Reilly's Nov. 6 interview with Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, co-authors of the soon-to-be-released "Sarah from Alaska." During the interview, the authors insisted that it was "not a slam book at all." In fact, Conroy said that his "final conclusion" of Palin was that "she's always been underestimated" and to "write her off" would be a "big mistake." Walshe also implicitly blamed the media by saying that Palin's "three-dimensional character" was ignored during last year's presidential campaign and, instead, "she was perceived as either an idiot or she was loathed."

So why did Conroy and Walshe feel the need to defend the fairness of their book? Perhaps because the duo had appeared on CBS earlier that week, and "fair" isn't an adjective that comes to mind in describing that interview.

Although the two networks asked the same basic questions, only FNC did any digging into the authors' responses. For example, during their interview with CBS' Harry Smith, Conroy and Walshe described the relationship between the "McCain and Palin camps" as "an all-out civil war," especially the night McCain gave his concession speech. According to Walshe, McCain refused to allow Palin to speak because his staffers were "terrified" that Palin would "embarrass John McCain even after the campaign had officially ended."

What could Palin say that would be so embarrassing? Was she going to hog the attention? Say something outlandish?

On CBS, Smith didn't ask these questions, preferring to use the anecdote to play up the "clash" between the McCain and Palin "camps." Which is too bad, since Conroy and Walshe had "exclusively obtained" the text of both Palin's victory and concession speeches.

Fortunately, O'Reilly bothered to ask. And it turns out that McCain's staffers were "terrified" of Palin being ... too nice.

"Both speeches really just praised John McCain as an American hero, praised Barack Obama," said Walshe.

"So it was a generous speech?" O'Reilly asked.

"Absolutely," Walshe asserted.

O'Reilly didn't ignore the subject of tension between McCain and Palin. But, unlike Smith, he didn't just accept the authors' initial assertions and move on.

During the CBS interview, Walshe said that Palin felt like "she wasn't being directed correctly" but the McCain staffers felt like "she was number two on the ticket and that she should follow direction." Conroy added, "[Palin's] sort of taken ownership of this phrase ‘Going Rogue,' but really, to many of the McCain staffers, it was very irritating that she time and again - towards the end of the campaign especially - was going off and doing her own thing."

"Time and again?" Wow. Examples? Smith didn't ask for any. Good thing O'Reilly followed up for him and found out that the McCain staff were irritated with Palin for the exact same reasons they had chosen her in the first place: for having an outgoing personality that connected well with the large, rural demographic.

"In the beginning of the campaign," said Walshe, "you'll remember, she wasn't allowed to come back and talk to the press. And she really wanted to. She knew that if she put her personal touch with the traveling press corps that she would be able to win them over as she did in Alaska. She was not allowed to. So, that's when she thought, I really should be following my own instincts. They didn't like that."

Conroy also said that Palin had trouble with the McCain staff when she wanted to campaign longer in Michigan. "She didn't want to give up there," he said. "She knew that those were the kinds of people she could win over - the salt of the earth people. But they just - the McCain staffers thought that was out of play."

Whatever trouble she might have had with McCain in 2008, both authors agreed with O'Reilly that she could definitely run again, citing her "thousands and thousands" of "very, very loyal" fans and saying that she had "absolutely" done a good job as the governor of Alaska.

So, while not a single positive word was said about Palin during the entire Smith interview, both authors agreed during O'Reilly's that, while Palin may have an "uphill climb," she shouldn't be "underestimated."

Now who's the real news network? Maybe it's the one with all the ratings.

"Conservatives say they pushed Dede Scozzafava out of the House race in New York's 23rd District a week ago because of her left-of-Republican social views - and not because she is a woman. But the growing schism between the Republican Party's ascendant right wing and its shrinking moderate core has clear gender undertones..."

So wrote Politico's Meredith Shiner and Glenn Thrush Monday in another attempt by a liberal media outlet to completely misrepresent what Scozzafava's ouster as Congressional candidate was really about.

As NewsBuster Candance Moore reported Thursday, ABCNews.com tried the same disgraceful, underhanded tactic last week.

Unfortunately on Monday, Politico didn't even try to be subtle with its attempt to fabricate sexism where it clearly doesn't exist (h/t Jennifer Rubin):

Conservatives say they pushed Dede Scozzafava out of the House race in New York’s 23rd District a week ago because of her left-of-Republican social views — and not because she is a woman.

But the growing schism between the Republican Party’s ascendant right wing and its shrinking moderate core has clear gender undertones — and Scozzafava’s departure raises fresh questions about the GOP’s ability to recruit, elect and even tolerate the sort of moderate women who used to be part of its ruling mainstream.

While Republicans scored a pair of impressive electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia with solid support among female voters, the events of the last week offer harbingers of serious trouble ahead with the largest swing voter bloc in the country — women.

As evidence of this sexism, Politico cited three -- wait for it! -- women. One's a friend of Scozzafava's, one's a devout feminist, and one's the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University:

“The case in the [23rd District] is a terrific example of what happens when you have a strong, moderate Republican woman on the ticket,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. “She struggled because the stalwarts of the party turned against her.” 

Scozzafava’s friend Janet Duprey, a moderate Republican who represents the adjacent state Assembly district in western New York, says the defection of party elders like George Pataki to her more conservative opponent Doug Hoffman reminded her of the GOP’s bad old days in the mid-1970s.

“I started my career in politics in 1975. ... I went through that,” Duprey told the Albany Times-Union. “I had some people who felt that a woman should not enter politics, a woman should not run. ... I hope that we’ve moved beyond that point. But I have to tell you, watching this go on, I’ve had some déjà vu back to 1975.”

“It has been very difficult to watch,” she added. “You have to ask some of these men, why weren’t they there with our Republican candidate when she could have really used our help?”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), one of the most outspoken feminists in the House, put it more bluntly: “This is a party that doesn’t respect women, a party that doesn’t believe women are equal to men,” she told POLITICO. “I don’t think they attract women to their party,” added Wasserman Schultz. “I think they repulse women.”

Commentary's Rubin responded:

Wait. I’m confused. I thought the GOP was in the grip of a right-wing wacko mother from Alaska. And Maureen Dowd warned us that Liz Cheney’s sex appeal is going to mesmerize the masses and vault her and her pro-torture, pro-war views into the ascendancy. Which is it — are Republicans punishing women or elevating them? There are women running for governor and the Senate in California, but maybe that doesn’t count. It couldn’t be that the base has had it with wishy-washy Republicans who are indistinguishable from Democrats, could it? No!

Exactly. After all, Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) decided to leave the Republican Party this year. 

Was that ALSO because of sexism?

On the other hand, maybe Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) left the Democrats last year because they were too feminist!

Hmmm. 

Of course, this is all a red herring, for having watched Republicans give up both Chambers of Congress and the White House in the past two major election cycles in an obviously unsuccessful attempt to attract so-called moderates, conservatives have had enough of RINOs.

And, ladies of gentlemen of the press -- it has NOTHING to do with GENDER!

To further demonstrate how preposterous this all is:

“Women tend to have a more practical, less ideological way of approaching life and, therefore, approaching politics, and our party doesn’t always take kindly to that,” said former Ohio Rep. Deborah Pryce, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference from 2003 to 2007.

Yeah, those awful, sexist GOPers really treated her poorly. After all, chair of the House Republican Conference is the fourth highest Republican position in the House.

Imagine the nerve of those sexist pigs to advance this woman so!

The Wall Street Journal's editorial today on the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall is excellent, as would be expected, and gives credit where credit is due:

In the debate over who deserves credit for causing the Berlin Wall to collapse on the night of November 9, 1989, many names come to mind, both great and small.

There was Günter Schabowski, the muddled East German politburo spokesman, who in a live press conference that evening accidentally announced that the country's travel restrictions were to be lifted "immediately." There was Mikhail Gorbachev, who made it clear that the Soviet Union would not violently suppress people power in its satellite states, as it had decades earlier in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. There were the heroes of Poland's Solidarity movement, not least Pope John Paul II, who did so much to expose the moral bankruptcy of communism.

And there was Ronald Reagan, who believed the job of Western statesmanship was to muster the moral, political, economic and military wherewithal not simply to contain the Soviet bloc, but to bury it.

[Editor's note: For more on the media's pro-Communist bias in the waning days of the Cold War, read "Better Off Red?", MRC's new study looking back 20 years ago to the fall of the Berlin Wall]

In the editorial's second-last paragraph, the Journal reminds us of an alleged journalist who was so blinded by his partisan disdain for any Republican in power that he refused to acknowledge what had become clear years earlier, and of the risk-averse weenies who tried to talk him out of delivering the signature line of what is probably his most famous speech (bold is mine):

Yet it bears recalling that even these obvious political facts were obscure to many people who lived in freedom and should have known better. "Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy," said CBS's Dan Rather just two years before the Wall fell. And when Reagan delivered his historic speech in Berlin calling on Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," he did so after being warned by some of his senior advisers that the language was "unpresidential," and after thousands of protesters had marched through West Berlin in opposition.

The only substance to former CBS Evening News anchor Rather's contention was that 70 years of statist conditioning and state-sponsored terror would make such a transition difficult -- as it has been, and with much recent dangerous backsliding. That doesn't change the fact that as our Founders stated, freedom is a God-given right to which every person is entitled, or that those who have come here from the old Soviet Union almost universally sing America's praises (often more recently with somber warnings about the direction we have taken in the past year or so). 

Sadly, there are even some on the right who subscribe to the untenable assertion that the Soviet Union imploded on its own because it was unsustainable -- in other words, it would have fallen anyway, with or without Lech Walesa, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul, or Reagan. Those who hold to this belief on both sides of the aisle need to ask themselves how that self-implosion theory is working out in Cuba and North Korea, both of which are in arguably worse shape than the Soviet Union ever was.

In a probable comment engine-starter, it also should not go unnoticed that the only vote against the resolution in the House recognizing the significance of the Wall's fall came from Ron Paul. I could not find an explanation for Paul's vote on his congressional web site or elsewhere. If he thinks it's because the resolution could have been stronger, I'd be inclined to agree with him, but for heaven's sake, not to the point of voting against it.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Andrew Bast of Newsweek thinks he’s got the real reason behind Major Nidal Hasan’s murderously criminal rampage at Fort Hood last Thursday. Could it be that Hasan was steadily radicalized and steeped in hateful Islamofascism? Could it be a jihad mindset that sent Hasan into that military clinic yelling Allahu Akbar as he shot at [...]

A gloomy Sunday in Seattle, perfect for a ride on Seattle's new Central Link light rail system, which opened to great fanfare on July 18 this year. After thirteen years of fits and starts and voters approving and then...

I will never forget my parents’ reaction the day the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago today. Having lost their country to Fidel Castro’s Communism, they had spent 30 years divided from their homeland, friends, and relatives -- just as the Wall had done to millions in Europe.

 

Although the Wall was an ocean away from my family’s native Cuba and their adopted country of America, its existence was the most concrete symbol of Communism’s presence in the world -- a reminder of its ability to divide families, turn neighbor against neighbor, use censorship to impose intellectual darkness, cripple economies, and deprive humans of their basic dignity and freedoms.

 

Especially for my parents’ generation of Cuban exiles, whose hopes and dreams were shattered by Communism, the Wall’s fall was an historic event they questioned would ever come. It was a day of celebration and rekindled hope that all lands within Communism’s grip would soon be free as well.

 

Twenty years later, we know the fall of the Berlin Wall signaled the dramatic advent of liberty in Europe. Today’s commemoration marks an opportunity to applaud all we have gained, while reminding us of what remains to be done to tear down other oppressive walls that still stand. America’s role in this effort cannot be underestimated.

 

Economically, we cannot allow Washington’s borrow-and-spend binges to make our commitment to freedom and human rights subservient to our debt holders. We must also make it a continued priority to strengthen our trade and commercial relationships with allies like Colombia that are surrounded by increasingly autocratic, repressive, and hostile neighbors.

 

Militarily, as Ronald Reagan said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” A free and secure world requires a strong America led by our brave men and women in uniform. America’s commitment to the defense of our allies should never waver. Today, as we consider the future of Europe, I am particularly concerned about President Obama’s recent decision to scrap our commitment to a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.  

 

Diplomatically, we must not confuse a desire for security and the promotion of democratic values as mutually exclusive goals. When freedom-loving Iranians peacefully took to the streets and Twitter to protest an illegitimate election, we should have been both defenders of the oppressed while continuing to insist on an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

 

In their time, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan were among the many world leaders who seized the opportunity to highlight Communism’s failures. In doing so, they helped make millions of oppressed people more self-aware of their intrinsic dignity, more confident that their pursuit of freedom was justified, and more hopeful that they were not alone in their struggles.

 

As the world celebrates today’s 20th anniversary, we must not forget to also stand in solidarity with those still laboring to bring about the fall of other oppressive walls that remain today in places like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, among many others.

 — Marco Rubio is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate in Florida.

---

The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney is reporting that the property Pfizer took in eminent domain is going to not be used after all: The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the [...]

We're not even done tallying up the latest bodycountbefore we again have to be instructed about the dangers of "backlash." In this case, the "backlash" feared is a feminist writer at Pajamas Media stating the inarguable: We have to begin...

Insisting that her opinion was not influenced by her views on abortion, MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman went on a tear shortly after 12:30 p.m. EST on her November 9 "Dr. Nancy" program, denouncing the "infuriating" Stupak Amendment to the Democratic health care bill passed on Saturday.

That amendment, named for pro-life Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak (D) would bar private insurance plans sold in the bill's publicly-subsidized insurance exchange from covering abortion. [audio available here]

As a consequence, women seeking to have insurance pay for abortion procedures under the would need to pay out-of-pocket for additional coverage for abortion procedures.

Snyderman hinted that she was annoyed that pro-life Democrats even thought it necessary to press for the Stupak Amendment in the first place. After all, Snyderman complained to MSNBC correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, she and her colleagues at MSNBC had done their level best for months to calm fears of pro-lifers about ObamaCare:

I must admit this one caught me by surprise. I thought the public option was going to be the real rallying cry for Saturday. Because the Hyde Amendment is in place, over the summer we kept saying there will be no federal money spent on abortions and then the Stupak Amendment came in, really tightening the chance for a woman's right to choose. Clarify for me.

After O'Donnell explained the impact of the Stupak Amendment, Snyderman resumed her rant and concluded the segment: 

Kelly, you know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating. And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion, or any of the hot-butto lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in many states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50-year-old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship, you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you'd better know that you have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had, it is one more pressure on women. I'm surprised that frankly, that there isn't more outrage over fact that, this isn't fair!

[...]

A white man deciding a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean, I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that you're making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous, just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you, so much.

And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk.

Monica, get me outta here.

Tomorrow is the Marine Corps Birthday. One of the traditions we keep to in the Corps is the Commandant’s Birthday message – it is played at every Marine Corps Ball and at any place where Marines gather all over the world. This is last year’s message from the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine [...]

Read this post »

Have you read John O'Sullivan on the Berlin Wall today?

---

---

So you might die if you don’t get the vaccine. It’s a National Emergency. And yet, the government is flopping around. Jennifer LaRue of the Washington Post: A poll released Friday by the Harvard School of Public Health found that two-thirds of parents and high-risk adults who want H1N1 vaccinations for themselves or their families have [...]

At the very end of the clip are questions Kyra asks (I only left the questions) her guest -- a military intelligence officer. Ain't it funny how they all lean in a certain way? Reminder: This is an Obama-approved "news"...

Please tolerate a little shameless self-promotion: I'm competing in the 2009 Weblog Awards in the "Best Video Blog" category, and I'd love to have your vote. Why is my video blog the best? Well, most recently, I've...

On Monday’s American Morning, CNN’s Carol Costello highlighted a column on the “right-wing” Pajamas Media website during a report on a possible backlash against Muslim soldiers, but omitted how the author of the column is a noted feminist, and that her only “right-wing” credential is her focus on Islamic misogyny.

Anchor John Roberts introduced Costello’s report, noting that  apparently “many people [are] fearing a backlash against America’s Muslim soldiers” after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. The CNN correspondent featured the mother of a Muslim army corporal who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq during the segment.

This mother, according to Costello, is “worried there will be a backlash against Muslim American soldiers. She knows some are already reaching conclusions as to why Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers.” As an example of someone “reaching conclusions,” the correspondent quoted from a column by Phyllis Chesler of Pajamas Media: “The right-wing website, Pajamas Media, is an example. Phyllis Chesler writing, ‘I knew in my bones that the shooter or shooters were Muslim. We must connect the dots before it's too late.’ The suspicion about Muslims, even those born in the United States, intensified after 9/11.” The quote comes from a November 5 column on the conservative website.

Costello did not explain during her report that Chesler is a professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at the College of Staten Island, and has written 13 books, mainly on feminist subjects, including “Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness” and “Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health.” In a 1998 interview with Time magazine about feminism, she defined the ideology, in part, as “a woman’s body is her own, and she should not be invaded against her will by a rapist , nor should she be prevented from having an abortion.” Clearly, Chesler is no huge “right-winger,” as Costello would have one believe.

Chesler’s contributions to Pajamas Media, which date back to May 2008, largely focus on subjects related to Islam’s subjugation of women, such as “honor” killings and bans on the burqa. Her personal website has an entire section devoted to the subject of “honor” killings. One might conclude that her personal stances on these issues lead CNN to label her “right wing.”

The full transcript of Carol Costello’s report, which began 45 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Monday’s American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS: The massacre at Fort Hood has many people fearing a backlash against America’s Muslim soldiers. Thirteen people were killed, and dozens more injured last week when army psychiatrist, Nidal Hasan, allegedly opened fire on his fellow troops. Hasan is Muslim. His motive remains unknown.

Our Carol Costello live in Washington this morning with an ‘AM Original.’ And army leaders, even the President, are worried about a potential backlash here, Carol.

CAROL COSTELLO: They are, John. The army’s chief of staff is worried about backlash against Muslim soldiers. General Casey saying as great as tragedy as it was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty, as well. It’s something that deeply worries many Americans who are Muslim and have made the ultimate sacrifice.

COSTELLO (voice-over): Elsheba Khan visits Arlington National Cemetery every Sunday without fail. Her son, Army Corporal Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, is buried here.

ELSHEBA KHAN, SON KILLED IN IRAQ: He’s a Muslim and he would stand for his county. It doesn’t matter what.

COSTELLO: Khan is worried there will be a backlash against Muslim American soldiers. She knows some are already reaching conclusions as to why Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers. The right-wing website, Pajamas Media, is an example. Phyllis Chesler writing, ‘I knew in my bones that the shooter or shooters were Muslim. We must connect the dots before it's too late.’ The suspicion about Muslims, even those born in the United States, intensified after 9/11. It’s the reason Khan’s American-born son joined the army as soon as he turned 18, telling his parents-

KHAN: I’m a citizen. I protect my country, whoever is there in the country. It doesn’t matter race, whatever.

COSTELLO: And Kareen Khan did that- awarded a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and an honored place at Arlington National Cemetery. A picture of Khan’s tombstone with symbols of his religion and patriotism so touched General Colin Powell, he used the image to open minds about Islam when he endorsed Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential run.

GENERAL COLIN POWELL (from interview on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’): Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that’s not America.

COSTELLO: Powell’s acknowledgement of her son’s service profoundly touched Khan.

KHAN: When he mentioned my son and he mentioned his full name, and he pronounced it correctly, I was like the proudest mom that day.

COSTELLO: President Obama also honored Kareem Khan, and Khan’s fellow soldiers have written her glowing accounts of Khan's outstanding service to country.

KHAN: I don’t like nobody touching anything [sic].

COSTELLO: Of course, the public outpouring has quieted now. Still, Khan keeps her son’s medals and his pictures on display in her home, and every Sunday, she visits him, now praying her fellow Americans will not pass judgment at all Muslims because of the actions of one man.

COSTELLO (on-camera): Roughly 3,500 American servicemen and women are Muslim, and if you ask the U.S. Marine Corps if it’s concerned about that, 1st Lt. Josh Dittums told us bluntly, the Corps has not seen any trends that indicate individuals are any more likely to be involved in an incident based upon their religion- John?

ROBERTS: But here’s something I am wondering about, Carol, that this clash of cultures in the military- when a Muslim enlists in the military, I have heard many stories that they’ve been harassed, that a lot of pressure has been put on them, and they’re just not made to feel welcome. Did Kareem Khan- has Kareem Khan experienced any of that?

COSTELLO: Kareem Khan did experience that, but as his mother told me- you know, he was a good soldier, and he earned the respect of his fellow soldiers and that eventually stopped. He joined the service because he was Muslim and because he was American, and he wanted to defend both his religion and his country because Muslims, in his mind- you know, don’t carry out suicide bombings.

ROBERTS: Yeah, exactly. All right- great story this morning. Carol Costello for us from Washington. Carol thanks so much.

More so than any other time in our history, Americans are beginning to believe there are no solutions to the many crises that we are experiencing. Even on a local level, which is often cushioned from the national difficulties of excess spending, a drastically increasing deficit and a larger percentage of our debt being own [...]

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias clearly doesn't like the American system. Over the years, he has pointed out time and again that if we had a different system, things would be better (or, at least, more liberal). ...

This was incredibly sad, and maddening, too: A reader reports seeing a CNN interview with one of the wounded soldiers and his wife. You can read the transcript here. The soldier was to be deployed in January, and still will be. (Afghanistan.) His wife was asked her feelings about this, and responded, “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”

---

Read this post »

As Sean Hannity is fond of saying: “Let not your heart be troubled.” We can still beat the Obama program in the Senate! Obama needed the momentum of House passage to help him in the Senate where the real challenge lies.

There, we have several Senators who might well vote no: Lieberman (CT), Bayh (Ind), Hagan (NC), Landrieu (LA), Pryor and Lincoln (Ark), Nelson (Neb), Johnson (SD), Dorgan and Conrad (ND), Tester (Montana), Engler (Col), and Feinstein (Cal). And Reid will need all of these Senators to back the bill to get the 60 votes to pass it (assuming we hold Collins and Snowe from Maine).

(more…)

In The Ambition and the Power (p. 486) John Barry reports how House Speaker Jim Wright (D., Texas) reacted to President Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall:

Wright’s face hardened. Reagan’s declaration had destroyed any chance of the wall coming down, since Gorbachev could not appear to bow to him. Wright fumed, “It just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan. He spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries It bespeaks his pettiness and self-centeredness. He just couldn’t bear Gorbachev doing it of his own volition.”

— John J. Pitney Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. With James Ceaser and Andrew Busch, he is co-author of Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics.

---

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago today.

When it happened, I thought it would be the clear turning point: the left would admit it was wrong, if not clueless, about central planning.

But it was I who was wrong.  Congress legislates like the Wall never fell.

Given that, it's important to look back to some East German accounts from when the wall fell. From the Washington Post:

Just a few steps from the checkpoint, two wheels fell off the baby stroller. A cold rain was falling. The border guards had submachine guns and sour faces. The Sickert family had one umbrella….

"This is the biggest moment in my life," said 38-year-old Klaus Sickert, wet, bareheaded and carrying [his four] children's clothes in a backpack…

If he had not packed up his family and abandoned East Germany this morning, he would be working as a weaver in a textile mill near Karl-Marx-Stadt. But he said he had come to believe over the weekend that there is a brighter future in being a refugee in West Germany than a worker at home…

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Thousands more weary but jubilant East Germans packed aboard "freedom trains" crossed the border into West Germany on Thursday after an overnight journey from Czechoslovakia.

"Out of hell, finally!" shouted one young man.

When the wall stood, about 5,000 East Germans risked guards with machine guns to get to West Berlin. More than a hundred were killed trying.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released this video of some escape attempts.

With freedom, Eastern European economies exploded: Polish citizens went from making $3,300 a year in 1988 to an average of $17,300 a year now.

There was one bad thing about the fall of the USSR:  We lost a very visible bad example of big centralized government.

With Washington now turning to central planning to “fix” healthcare, clean the environment, and “create” jobs, it’s helpful to have role models of failure. They remind citizens of the politicians’ arrogance.

For the young, the example of the Soviet Union resonates less and less.

We do, however, still have North Korea, Cuba, State Motor Vehicles Departments, K-12 education, and the Us Postal Service.

Predictable, and wonderful.

Did you know that 237 of our "representatives" in Congress are millionaires?

This is the best "what's in the bill" piece I've seen thus far. Betsy McCaughey writes for the WSJ. Here's how it begins:What the government will require you to do: . Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to...

With the opposition to ObamaCare wondering whether Republicans should have voted “present” on the Stupak amendment rather than let it pass, The Hill reports that Democrats expect the amendment to get stripped in committee anyway.  Rep. [...] Read the rest »

Keeping an eye on the real terrorists (that would be you). Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon,...

Economist extraordinaire Keith Hennessey looks at "The Legislative Landscape for Health Care After House Passage." Take a look!

Isn't that Paul Krugman clever? The title of his latest op-ed ("Paranoia Strikes Deep") quotes a line, presumably deliberately, from a 1960s protest song many consider one of the opening shots in that decade's protest movement.

Before he got cute with his title, Krugman should have gone to the song's full lyrics, as they only serve to prove that what he describes as paranoia is, based on what is in HB 3962 (or was, if excised at the last minute), really very justifiable concern and fear. Or maybe he read the lyrics and was too dense to appreciate their meaning in the current circumstances.

The song that apparently inspired Krugman's column title is "For What It's Worth," a 1966-1967 mini-hit by Buffalo Springfield. The album containing the song peaked at #80 on the hit charts; my recall is that the single made it to the mid-30s.

That band featured Neil Young, Stephen Stills, Richie Furay, Jim Messina, and Dewey Martin. A YouTube of their lip-synching Smothers Brothers appearance is here.

Here are a few paragraphs, otherwise known as insults to our intelligence, from Krugman, commenting on the crowd that gathered last Thursday to protest the House's statist health care bill. I'll follow it with the song's final lyrical lament that destroys Krugman's diatribe:

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”

What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.

This comes from a guy whose publication and others on the left were constantly worrying about "stifling of dissent" that occurred at the behest of George W. Bush only in their vivid, authentically paranoid imaginations. 

The final verse of "For What It's Worth," with text added by me frpm what's really in HB 3962 (unless excised in the final hours, but which could reappear at any time if that's case), reads as follows:

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line ....

the man come ....

and take you away:

Thanks for proving our point, Paul. It's not paranoia if it's really there, or if "the man" (actually in this case Nancy Pelosi and her party) is really contemplating putting people in jail merely for not buying health insurance.

I think that a better theme song describing the Tea Party and other sensibly conservative, Constitution-based protests would be the Who's "We Won't Get Fooled Again." It may be too late for Krugman, who seems totally fooled by the current bunch in the White House, more and more resembling one of Lenin's useful idiots.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

You might not have known it from the lack of coverage on Thursday, but Tea Partiers rallying at Capitol Hill were joined by at least one celebrity ObamaCare critic, actor Jon Voight, who denounced the requirement forcing Americans to buy health insurance under penalty of law as unconstitutional.

Back during the George W. Bush era, the media often hyped the criticism of the Iraq War effort by liberals in Hollywood, playing up the political credibility of actors like Mike Farrell (best known for his role in the long-running TV series "M*A*S*H") who waxed philosophical on the justness or necessity of that war's effort.

Yet even though it's a rarity to find conservatives in Hollywood, much less politically vocal ones like Voight, the ones that are vocal critics of the Obama administration are all but ignored by the mainstream media.

Fortunately our sister site CNSNews.com reports stories the MSM won't touch, and caught up with Voight last Thursday. Reporter Nicholas Ballasy has two stories related to that linked here and here. I've included an excerpt of Friday's story below the page break:

Thousands of Americans opposed to the Democrats’ health care plan marched on Capitol Hill Thursday urging lawmakers to “kill the bill.” Among the speakers at the rally was Hollywood actor Jon Voight who told CNSNews.com he does not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance. He also said there are “a lot of things that are unconstitutional” going on in Congress.
 
CNSNews.com asked Voight, “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to be able to require individuals to have health insurance?”
 
“I don’t believe so,” he said. “They can’t mandate it.”

“There’s a lot of things that are unconstitutional going on and we know that,” Voight told CNSNews.com. “So, that’s what this is all about. That’s why these people are all upset and that’s why they’re all out there. “
 
“And you should go interview some of these people because you’ll see the real America,” said Voight. “You’ll see the America of our forefathers. You’ll see very brave people. You’ll see great people and eloquent people. They’re as good as anybody who’s behind that microphone.”

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, MSNBC hostess Rachel Maddow broke out the ten-foot-pole of disgust for losing Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds. But back in September, she suggested Bob McDonnell’s thesis from "Pat Robertson’s Liberty University" would sink him: "Here’s where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-excesses of the conservative movement."

Oops. Actually, double oops, Miss Maddow: Robertson’s college is Regent University. Isn’t it amazing that her liberal fans always tout how she "does her homework"?

Here’s Maddow on Sunday:

I think that if, if Republicans could choose to have anything to extrapolate from the, from the Bob McDonnell race, it would be to have as an opponent Creigh Deeds. If they could pick anything that they wanted. I mean, Creigh Deeds was a, was a marketably ineffective Democratic candidate, essentially running away from the president, running from everything popular in the Democratic agenda and doing it in a stylistically poor way. So I'm sure he's a very nice guy; he was a very bad candidate.

Here’s Maddow on her MSNBC program on September 22:

And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here’s where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement. At the Values Voter Summit this weekend, Republican presidential ever hopeful Mitt Romney told the conservative crowd there that he thought signs were good that the Republican in the Virginia governor`s race, Bob McDonnell, would win. Romney this week also raised over $100,000 for Mr. McDonnell.

But Mr. McDonnell has seen his poll numbers shrink recently, ever since he brought up his master's thesis in an interview with The Washington Post. Mr. McDonnell did his graduate degree at televangelist Pat Robertson’s Liberty University.

And after he brought up his thesis with reporters, those reporters went and read it and then they promptly reprinted the parts where he said things like government policy needs to stop favoring with the cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators. Fornicators? He also says that women shouldn't work outside the home, for what it's worth.

After electing two Democratic governors in a row, is Virginia really going to turn around and elect a Republican this year who went to Pat Robertson's university and who crusaded against fornicators? Well, now, it's getting worse for Bob McDonnell and his poll numbers show it.

That prediction (or bout of wishful thinking) didn't exactly work out.

The NYPost editorial page also weighs-in on Obama's absence in Berlin today: ... For Obama, America is but one nation among many, no different -- or more exceptional -- than any other. Its record is one that,...

Nick DiPaolo

View Original Post