Poor T-Paw

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 2:44 pm MST

Campaigns are populated by hacks and trade in cheap shots. But the hacks are usually paid staffers, and the cheap shots are part of their job description. It's sad to see a respected former governor reduced to low-level staff hackery, acting as an attack dog on behalf of a man he once criticized ("Obamneycare") and now supports.

Here's Tim Pawlenty today, as a Mitt Romney campaign surrogate, on a conference call criticizing former senator Rick Santorum for . . . having voted to raise the debt ceiling: "He voted numerous times to raise the debt ceiling and here we as a nation facing fiscal crisis, I mean literally on the edge of the fiscal abyss. We need a next president who’s been strong and proven in fiscal and spending matters, and we had Rick Santorum voting numerous times to raise the debt ceiling." (The quotation is from the Romney press shop’s transcript.)

Here's a question: Did either Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney speak out at the time against any of the debt ceiling hikes Rick Santorum voted for as a member of Congress?

And here's a thought: Perhaps the Romney campaign could stop abusing poor Tim Pawlenty?

Detroit ‘Comeback' Ad Filmed in New Orleans, L.A.

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 2:07 pm MST

One of the most popular Super Bowl advertisements last night was the Chrysler ad featuring Clint Eastwood, titled “Halftime in America.”

The spot is supposed to be encouraging, as it focuses on the resilience of Detroit. “It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half,” Eastwood says in the spot. “It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.”

But contrary to what the might ad suggest, the spot was actually filmed in New Orleans and Los Angles. “Yes, part of it was filmed in New Orleans . . . and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” Dianna Gutierrez said. She specifically points to the tunnel scenes as being taken at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, while the stadium shots were in New Orleans.

Asked whether any part of the ad was filmed in Detroit, Gutierrez said that previously taken footage from various parts of the Motor City was used. No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad.

“Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us,” Eastwood says in the ad. “This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.”

Yet, while Detroit’s comeback might be the message of Eastwood’s ad, its physical imagery comes from New Orleans and Los Angeles.

Is the IRS Grinding an Axe for Teachers' Unions?

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 2:00 pm MST

Nearly 100,000 public charter school teachers are in danger of losing already earned pension benefits if a proposed IRS rule goes into effect this June. The public comment period on the regulation ends today, with no word from the agency regarding its decision.

The IRS selected a basket of public employee categories (including zoo keepers) to stop designating as government groups, meaning they would lose eligibility for state pensions. This regulation would force states to yank charter school teachers from state retirement plans and retroactively pull matching funds the state has already contributed to their accounts. Every single state that authorizes charter schools currently either requires or permits charter schools to participate in the state’s retirement system.

“We're hoping this is just an oversight,” said Stephanie Grisham, spokeswoman for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

Charter school teachers are largely non-unionized, and happy to stay that way. Teacher unions are the largest special-interest contributors to elections—and huge contributors to President Obama in 2008. They constantly oppose charter schools. Charters are fully public schools (they receive public per-pupil funds, must take all comers, and pick students by lottery if oversubscribed) that receive flexibility on government mandates in exchange for an actual possibility of quick shutdown if they can’t prove they’re educating kids.

Charters consistently show up traditional public schools academically. Four hundred thousand students are on charter school waiting lists, and the main reason they can’t get in is that teacher unions in every state and district have sponsored limits to their growth.

It’s odd for a government agency to try to strip, rather than enlarge, public-sector benefits. So is this just an oversight, or a sneaky backdoor attempt to please unions piqued at Obama’s pro-charter education policy so far?

It’s hard to tell right now, but one thing is clear: This reflects poorly on the IRS and Obama administration. It either indicates the agency has so many regulations it can’t measure their potential impact, or that the administration is so deep into picking winners and losers according to campaign donations it’s willing to strip 95,000 public employees of already-earned benefits.

 Joy Pullmann is managing editor of School Reform News and an education research fellow at The Heartland Institute. 

The Nevada Caucus Results

→ The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 1:52 pm MST

Since Las Vegas rivals New York as the city that never sleeps, the Nevada GOP finally announced Saturday's full Republican caucus results earlier today:

Mitt Romney 16,486 50.1%
Newt Gingrich 6,956 21.1%
Ron Paul 6,175 18.8%
Rick Santorum 3,277 10%

It's noteworthy that Mitt Romney cobbled together a bare majority, though he was down slightly from his 2008 percentage. Ron Paul finished behind Newt Gingrich despite improving his vote percentage by a few points from four years ago. But the results represent Paul's smallest growth in vote totals from the last campaign by far.

Pawlenty Used to Tweak Santorum

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 1:20 pm MST

On a conference call Monday afternoon, a Mitt Romney campaign surrogate—Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor—criticized Rick Santorum for being part of the “big-spending establishment in Congress and in the influence-peddling industry that surrounds Congress,” and for previously supporting earmarked spending.

Pawlenty endorsed Romney soon after dropping out of the Republican presidential primary last year. Today’s call was organized by Romney’s presidential campaign.

Voters heading to Minnesota’s caucuses on Tuesday, Pawlenty said, ought to know this about Santorum’s record. “Rick Santorum is clearly not as conservative on these matters as conservative caucus attendees or Republican or conservative activists and people who are part of the conservative movement more broadly,” he said.

One reporter asked Pawlenty if Romney and himself are as conservative as Minnesota’s caucus attendees. “I consider myself a conservative, and Mitt Romney, by the way, has got a conservative record,” Pawlenty said. “His record, of course, isn’t perfect. None of the records of these candidates are perfect. But Mitt Romney’s record is a conservative record. Again, not perfect but conservative.”

Santorum has repeatedly defended the earmarks he sought as a member of Congress, and he claims, now that their abuse became evident, he supports banning them. “People change position from time to time for various reasons,” Pawlenty said about Santorum’s transformation. “And the fact that [Santorum] has now tried to move away from the fact that he was a champion of earmarks is noteworthy…. He’s held himself out as the perfect or near-perfect conservative when in fact that’s not his record.” 

But the campaign surrogate did not say how Romney’s own policy reversal on, say, abortion is any different than Santorum’s.  

In fact, Romney’s own record shows he sought federal spending when he was governor of Massachusetts. In 2003, Cindy Gillespie, Romney’s chief of legislative and intergovernmental affairs, sent a memo to cabinet officers outlining the governor’s plans to increase federal funding to Massachusetts. 

“A major priority of our Administration is ensure that Massachusetts receives the maximum amount of dollars available from the federal government,” the memo reads. “We can increase Massachusetts’s share of federal dollars by implementing a system of identifying and tracking grants so that we can aggressively advocate and pursue the discretionary funding opportunities and closely track the receipt of the formula and other funds.”

When You've (Potentially) Lost Doug Kmiec...

→ The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 12:51 pm MST

Doug Kmiec, a prominent "Obamacon" and leading Catholic apologist for Barack Obama's abortion position during the 2008 election, has indicated that he might not support the president's reelection because of the HHS contraception mandate.

Kmiec was a veteran of the Reagan administration and former adviser to Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign before supporting Obama. He wrote a book and many articles arguing that pro-life Catholic could -- and should -- vote for the Democratic nominee in that election. Kmiec was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Malta, from which he resigned after a State Department report criticized him for talking and writing too much about his religious beliefs. Kmiec didn't really emphasize his just war objections to John McCain and supported the health care bill from which the mandate he opposes ultimately sprang.

He told The Hill that "there were several ways to reimburse employees of Catholic institutions for the expense which did not implicate any of the ethical concerns of the theologians. Why exactly did we not walk down a path that would have led to common ground - namely, coverage without ethical objection? That's what I need answered before deciding on 2012. I find it most troubling to be tossed into this dilemma since as a Republican with independent, if not latent Democratic, tendencies, I am very proud of the president's success on the healthcare initiative and his withdrawal of troops from Iraq..."

I wrote at length about Kmiec's campaiging for Obama a while back. Apparently the president has finally -- perhaps -- gone a bridge too far.

Hoekstra Misfires

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 12:25 pm MST

This Super Bowl TV ad by Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra is drawing a lot of attention--and not in a good way:

Michael O'Brien reports at MSNBC.com:

Michigan Republican Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra's came under scrutiny Monday for a controversial Super Bowl ad targeting Democratic opponent Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Hoekstra's campaign aired an ad on Sunday depicting an Asian woman speaking in broken English, facetiously thanking Stabenow for encouraging federal spending.

"Thank you Michigan Sen. Debbie Spend-it-now. Debbie spends so much American money -- you borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak; ours get very good. We take your jobs," the woman says in the ad. [...]

The ad faced additional criticism from both Democrats and Republicans alike.

"Pete Hoekstra had a wardrobe malfunction this Super Bowl weekend and it was not pretty," said Shripal Shah, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman.

Republican consultant Mike Murphy, meanwhile, wrote on Twitter: "Pete Hoekstra Superbowl TV ad in MI Senate race really, really dumb. I mean really."

Northern Lights in Yellow Knife, Canada

→ Maggie's Farm | 6 Feb 2012 | 12:17 pm MST

Obama's made-up jobless numbers

→ Hyscience | 6 Feb 2012 | 11:49 am MST

More and more evidence is turning up that Obama has politicized the Department of Labor to the extent that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 'cooking the books' to the point of both 'loosing' 1.2 million people out of the labor force and 'finding' 446,000 new "seasonally adjusted" jobs to replace what is in reality 2.9 million less jobs.

For the naive and/or uninformed, here's a little reminder: The U.S. Department of Labor is headed by a political appointee of Barack Obama, Hilda Solis. So it comes as no one's surprise that she would want the President who appointed her to look as good as possible. This isn't to say that she would order the employment data to be doctored in any way, but she can certainly have the Bureau of Labor Statistics present the data in a way that makes 'good' news out of 'bad' news ... and it appears that she has done exactly that, and has gone so far as to, as we've noted in a previous post, effectively make 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month, and more.

Today, Joseph Curl weighs-in on the matter, at The Washington Times:

When it comes to the unemployment rate, it's nice to be president.

Sure, it wasn't so nice for President Obama in October 2009, when the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics declared the rate was 10 percent. But exactly a year from Election Day 2012, the rate began a precipitous plunge, first to 8.9 percent, then the next month, to 8.7, then to 8.5. And just last week, the BLS said the rate had fallen all the way down to 8.3 percent.

If the spectacular "recovery" keeps up at the same pace, the rate will be 6.3 percent by Nov. 6. It hasn't been that low since -- well, all but four of the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. But you get the point. America is back!! Woo-hoooo!!

So, spectacular news for the president, yes? And fantastic news for America, right? Uh, yes. And absolutely no.

See, the BLS boys, no doubt at the president's direction, are busy rewriting the rules, and they're in uncharted, and unchecked, territory. The federal government Friday declared that the U.S. had created -- not "saved," mind you, "created" -- 243,000 jobs. Amazing, right?

But wait, what's that little asterisk here? A record 1.2 million Americans left the labor force? 1.2 million?! Well, where'd they go? Oh, just left? Well, OK. But no, wait. What does that even mean?

As Joseph Curl goes on to point out, no one in the mainstream media, busy rewriting the government's press release on Friday, will bother to question the newest number, or explore what trimtabs.com CEO Charles Biderman said that very day:

"Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments -- made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists -- that 2.9 million less jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs for January and December.

From Biderman's post with the video:

The biggest headline for all financial media today is that the US economy added a much more than expected 243,000 jobs in January, and 446,000 jobs over the past two months. That is many more new jobs than our estimate of less than 50,000 for January and our estimate of 90,000 for December and January.

Our estimate of a slowly growing economy is based primarily upon daily income tax collections. Either there is something massively changed in the income tax collection world, or there is something very suspicious about today's Bureau of Labor Statistics hugely positive number. We continue to check and recheck our analysis of income tax collections. We are aware that another service believes that incomes are growing faster than we do. So far we have not found any errors or discrepancies in our work, but if we do, we will let you know.

The BLS each month reports two data series, but only one jobs number is reported by the media. Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments -- made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists that 2.9 million less jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs for January and December.

No one I know has any idea as to how the BLS does this seasonal adjustment. BLS historic data is changed almost every month until the income tax returns for each year are available three years in arrears. In other words, the BLS currently has accurate data for 2008 and before.

I keep repeating that the BLS refuses to use the data embedded in income tax collections to be able to report real time jobs and wages. Why does it refuse? Could the reason it refuses to use real time data on jobs and incomes be because perhaps this jobs number is politically motivated? The entire world is looking at US job creation as a proxy on how well Obama is doing? Could the Obama administration be pressuring its economist employees to create the best possible new jobs number?

Obviously I am quite suspicious of the numbers that I see in today's BLS press release. Remember most financial journalists and even stock market strategists do nothing more than rewrite government press releases. So do not expect very few others to question the good news.

For those of you who care, look at Table B-1, Total Nonfarm Employment in today's BLS press release attached to this video on our blog site. Start with the non seasonally adjusted table that shows that in November 2011, there were 133.172 million actual jobs. Actual jobs dropped by 220,000 jobs in December and actual jobs dropped an additional 2.7 million in January. Only as a result of unknown seasonal adjustments, could the BLS report 243,000 new hires in January.

Yes, the labor market contracts during the winter and expands in the spring and summer. Could this number be manipulated? Of course it could. Is it? I don't know.Am I the only suspicious soul out here? Hope not. Certainly feels lonely right now.

A free high school education for every American kid

→ Maggie's Farm | 6 Feb 2012 | 11:49 am MST

I noticed this: Biden Florida Visit: College Degrees for Everyone.

I had to laugh at that, because America is still far from providing a meaningful high school education to the average kid:

The cheerful confidence in face of utter ignorance is the most impressive aspect of this video. You can either blame the schools, the parents, or simply accept that these kids simply are not interesting in knowing much. You can lead a horse to water... 

These kids don't need college. They need remedial grammar school. As Black and Right says: "We fund public schools. I demand my money back"

Fox News Sunday Panel on 2012 Elections and More

→ Hyscience | 6 Feb 2012 | 10:47 am MST

Chris Wallace, with Bill Kristol, Liz Marlantes, Juan Williams, and Liz Cheney, yesterday on Fox News:

Hat tip - TWS

Super Bowl XLVI and the Tiquan Underwood Curse

→ The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 10:42 am MST

Not to channel Gisele Bundchen, but the Super Bowl really came down to the New Giants receivers being able to make plays when they needed to and the New England Patriots receivers failing to do so. Tom Brady wasn't perfect -- his throw to Wes Welker on what could have been the game-winner in the penultimate drive was off, his intercepted pass to Rob Gronkowski was underthrown, and that safety on the opening offensive play was costly. But there were also drops on beautifully thrown balls and open receivers not coming up with them when the game was on the line.

In a game that close and competitive, every mistake is magnified. The Patriots' 12 men on the field penalty negating a fumble recovery and setting up a Giants' touchdown, an offside penalty on 3-and-7 negating a key stop on the Giants' 11 in the fourth quarter, the repeated, costly drops on the final desperation drive. The two teams were by turns hot and cold, with the winner determined by who still had the ball at the two-minute warning.

Take nothing away from the Giants. Their pass rush was solid, their receivers clutch, and Eli Manning has cemented his case to eventually join his brother Peyton -- who has just half as many rings -- in the Hall of Fame. Eli possesses accuracy and composure, even if he lacks the big persona of other elite NFL quarterbacks. Eventually, the media ought to give him some respect rather than constantly peppering him with questions about Peyton.

But what accounts for the uncharacteristically high number of Patriots' mistakes? Believers in karma may point to the release of a wide receiver the night before the Super Bowl (though he would have still gotten a ring had the Patriots won and is due for a Super Bowl bonus) to promote a player from the practice squad who was a non-factor in the game. It highlighted a Bill Belichick trait that has makes him unpopular outside New England. Call it the Tiquan Underwood curse.

Obama Campaign Super Bowl Ad: Good For Chrysler, Good For Obama

→ Hyscience | 6 Feb 2012 | 9:11 am MST

It looks like I'm not the only one that thought that two-minute Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad come off as an Obama 2012 campaign ad. And going by comments on the spot made by WH spokesman Dan Pfeiffer and Obama Chief Stratagist David Axelrod, I can't help but wonder to what extent Team Obama influenced the ad's content ... it just seems simply too close to Obama's SOTU pitch to be a coincidence (as Tina Daunt notes at The Hollywood Reporter, the Obama reelection campaign couldn't buy a better endorsement).

This, however, is not to say that I didn't find the ad to otherwise uplifting and have a great message ... it's just that a politician that's totally incapable of 'bringing America back' is using that message as a ruse to take America to statism and weakness, not the America that we've been in the past.:

People are out of work and they're hurting. And they're all wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared, because this isn't a game. ...We all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. ... All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? ... Yeah, it's halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.

The Clint Eastwood ad during the Super Bowl is causing a stir in political circles.

Our colleague Steve Goldstein at MarketWatch writes at the Political Watch blog:

It could be viewed as a simple celebration of the recovery of bankrupt Chrysler. But the political overtones were easy to see as well: "Halftime in America" could be interpreted as a rallying call for a second term for President Barack Obama, who pushed ahead with a bailout of Chrysler and General Motors (read more on GM's financial results on WSJ.com) despite objections from Republicans, including his likely presidential opponent, Mitt Romney.

"Saving the America Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on," tweeted Dan Pfeiffer, the White House spokesman. Added David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist: "Powerful spot." Filmmaker Michael Moore was a bit more direct (and apologies for the Twitterese): "Your sermon seemed 2 b a call 2 give O his 'second half.'"

The former Republican mayor of Carmel, Calif. wasn't universally loved. "WTH? Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???" said Michelle Malkin, the conservative blogger. "I think Clint Eastwood's credentials as a conservative have been overrated for some time," added David Limbaugh, the brother of Rush and himself a conservative author.

... Chrysler was first bailed out by Jimmy Carter in 1979. Maybe if the market had been allowed to break the company up into smaller parts then, it would not have needed Obama to spend another $13 billion bailing it out in 2009.

There is a word for Obama's relationship with Chrysler, General Motors, Bank of America, Citibank, General Electric, and every other big business that workd with the Obama administration: corporatism. And as 2006 Nobel laureate and Professor of Economics at Columbia University Edmund Phelps and Columbia University's Center for Capitalism and Society Saifedean Ammous explain, corporatism is not capitalism:

In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals' economic freedom and responsibility. Today, airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and much more has at some point been deemed too important to weather the free market on its own, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the "public good."

The costs of corporatism are visible all around us: dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.

This shift of power from owners and innovators to state officials is the antithesis of capitalism. Yet this system's apologists and beneficiaries have the temerity to blame all these failures on "reckless capitalism" and "lack of regulation," which they argue necessitates more oversight and regulation, which in reality means more corporatism and state favoritism.</blockquote>

And speaking of corporatism, there's that other Super Bowl ad example this year - the Chevy Silverado Super Bowl 2012 ad.

Related: Eastwood's Rorschach Test

Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan

→ The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 9:05 am MST

Ed Meese has a great column on the Reagan legacy here. My take on it is here. Frank Donatelli also has a good tribute to the Gipper.

Super Bowl XLVI: Did You See That?

→ The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog | 6 Feb 2012 | 7:07 am MST

Another tremendous comeback victory by Eli Manning and the New York Giants over the New England Patriots in yesterday's Superbowl. I didn't really care about either team, but was going for the Giants (despite being a Redskins and Broncos fan -- drifting more toward the Broncos with each year I live in Colorado) just because I was born in NYC.

Mario Manningham's fourth-quarter catch was one of the greatest in Super Bowl history. Like David Tyree's catch in Super Bowl 42, it was another incredible passing play by the Giants during yet another late fourth quarter drive to beat Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

Denver must be a fairly happy place, at least considering the Broncos aren't in the game, based on what I heard on my show and other radio shows in the past few days: the city (and probably the state) was cheering for the Giants, not because Coloradoans like the G-Men, but because the Patriots seems to be widely despised around here. Callers were tired of Tom Brady, over Bill Belichick whose stand-offish attitude doesn't play well in the Rocky Mountain west, and still angry with Josh McDaniels who came to the Broncos from the Patriots in 2009, and as head coach engineered a .500 season followed by a disastrous 3-9 start to the 2010 season before being fired -- and returning eventually to the Patriots. Congratulations to the Giants and their embattled coach Tom Coughlin who some people thought might be fired mid-season. It's been a long time since I've been happy about a New York team winning anything...

The other "did you see that" moment came during the half-time show. I've never been a big Madonna fan but I was really impressed with and enjoyed the show. Her singing was good and the show itself was great. Pretty impressive all around for a woman in her 50s. I wonder how much Vogue magazine paid for that "product placement."

But during Madonna's new song, "Give Me All Your Luvin'" (she also played 3 old songs). one of her lead supporting singer-dancers -- a Grammy-nominated British singer who goes by the name M.I.A. -- had an anatomy malfunction: she flipped the audience the bird. It was brief, but when my wife and I were watching the halftime show (on DVR so I could rewind/replay it) I immediately said to her "Did you see that?" We played it again, and sure enough there was the extended middle finger. It's getting almost as much attention as the game.

It also sounded like the lyrics M.I.A. sang were "I don't give a sh*t" though not as many news outlets are mentioning that. So much for "proper" British manners.

NBC apologized, and the NFL attributed the fact that the middle finger gesture escaped through the system to the game's roughly 115 million viewers around the world to "a failure in NBC's delay system." I bet someone's not looking forward to showing up at the office today.

Meanwhile, M.I.A. is now known to millions of people who never heard of her before. How's that for product placement?

Meanwhile, Back in France ...

→ Most recent blog entries | 6 Feb 2012 | 6:54 am MST

French Interior Minister Claude Gueant, truth-teller and Establishment-marked man

--

Silvio Berlusconi's finest 1/2 hour came shortly after 9/11 when he became the first and only Western leader to point out the duh-obvious distinctions between Western civilization and Islam -- essentially, one culture enshrines liberty, one does not -- and made the rather modest call for us to be aware of the distinction. For this he was pilloried, excoriated, heaped with scorn the world over, and beat a retreat rapido. (I discuss the episode  at some length in The Death of the Grown-Up.)

This plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face observation thus successfully purged from the political mainstream, it became the hotly controversial domain of so-called "far right" political figures across Europe, from Filip Dewinter in Belgium to Geert Wilders in Holland to Oskar Freysinger on Switzerland to Heinz Christian Straache in Austria to Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark and on into Italy, Britain, France, Germany and more.

Now, a French interior minister in Nicolas Sarkozy's government has stepped onto the chopping block with the same message, albeit with more bite. Not only should we be aware of the distinction, we should protect our pro-humanity Western civilization. He made his "outrageous" comments on Saturday. Now, watch the dunications fly.

Suspense: Will he cave?

AFP reports:

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant said on Sunday he stood by remarks that not all civilisations are equal, as critics denounced his comments as dangerous and xenophobic. 

Guéant, who is also responsible for immigration and is known as a hardliner, provoked a storm of controversy with the comments on Saturday.

"Contrary to what the left's relativist ideology says, for us all civilisations are not of equal value," Guéant told a gathering of right-wing students.

"Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not," he said.

"Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred," he said in his speech, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

He also stressed the need to "protect our civilisation".

The sky is blue, the pope is Catholic, Grant is buried in Grant's Tomb and the Battle of White Plains took place in White Plains.

"I do not regret (the comments)," Guéant said on Sunday, though he accused critics of taking them "out of context".

The left denounced his speech as an attempt by President Nicolas Sarkozy to woo supporters of the the far-right National Front (FN) ahead of a two-round presidential election in April and May.

Harlem Desir, the number two in the French Socialist Party, slammed "the pitiful provocation from a minister reduced to a mouthpiece for the FN".

Bernard Cazeneuve, a spokesman for Socialist presidential candidate François Hollande, denounced the remarks as "divisive and degrading" while former Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal called them "dangerous."

Sarkozy's allies were quick to defend the minister, however.

Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said it was simply "common sense" to suggest that civilisations could be ranked according to values such as "respecting personal rights, rejecting violence or abolishing the death penalty".

Finance Minister François Baroin accused the left of "exploiting the statements for electoral gain".

Foreign Minister Alain Juppé suggested that his colleague had meant to say that "all ideas, all political systems are not equal".

Speaking on BFM television, Juppé said however one should avoid talking of a shock of civilisations, suggesting the term was "inadequate".

Guéant has repeatedly linked immigration with crime in France and last month said the delinquency rate among immigrants was "two to three times higher" than the national average.

In April, he declared that an increase in the number of Muslim faithful in France posed a "problem".

Quelle probleme!

He has also said that he wants to reduce the number of legal immigrants entering France, including those coming to work legally or to join their families.

His latest comments came as the FN's presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is credited with about 20 percent support in opinion polls.

Monday morning links

→ Maggie's Farm | 6 Feb 2012 | 4:31 am MST

Five Orcas, Five Slaves or Five Persons?

Gay marriage was not even on the radar 20 years ago.

Funny, but nobody seems to think there’s anything wrong with saying that you have to compromise to be a husband. . . .

Choosing the Wrong Major Could Cost You

Who knew that middle-class French parents are acting just like American parents of the 1950s!

Yale witch-hunting covered by NYT

Waiting for Hamilton: The ‘Imbecility’ of the EU

Best Sentence CXXII

As Gingrich attacks Romney for being successful, and Romney proves too slow on his feet to talk about his admirable business career without apologizing or making gaffes, the Republicans cede the narrative to Obama.

The way to neuter opposition to intrusive government measures is to present them as being “for the childrren"

A mild winter in the US, not so mild in Europe:

Larwyn's Linx: A Tale of Two Republican Parties

→ Doug Ross @ Journal | 6 Feb 2012 | 4:24 am MST

Nation

Economy

GOP Primary

Scandal Central

Climate & Energy

Media

World

Sci-Tech

Cornucopia

QOTD: "To argue and debate about how Romney will perform in the White House (or to opine on how fine a man he is, which is true - but so what?) is to completely miss the only point that matters in 2012, which is denying Obama four more years to administer the coup de grace to the US." --NRO Commenter LKS

→ Maggie's Farm | 6 Feb 2012 | 2:56 am MST

Metropolitan Museum of Art, late Saturday afternoon.

Our First Post-Post-Racial President

→ Doug Ross @ Journal | 5 Feb 2012 | 7:09 pm MST

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Not If, But When

→ Warning Signs | 5 Feb 2012 | 3:52 pm MST

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Dear pro journalists: if the economy is improving...

→ Doug Ross @ Journal | 5 Feb 2012 | 3:43 pm MST

If the economy is getting better, then why did new home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011?

If the economy is getting better, then why are there 6 million less jobs in America today than there were before the recession started?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of homeless female veterans more than doubled?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of children living in poverty in America risen for four years in a row?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" at an all-time high?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the Federal Housing Administration on the verge of a financial collapse?

If the economy is getting better, then why do only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of self-employed Americans fallen by more than 2 million since 2006?

If the economy is getting better, then why did an all-time record low percentage of U.S. teens have a job last summer?

If the economy is getting better, then why does median household income keep declining? Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 10 million since 2006?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the average age of a vehicle in America now sitting at an all-time high?

If the economy is getting better, then why are 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida currently sitting vacant?

If the economy is getting better, then why are 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 living with their parents?

If the economy is getting better, then why does the number of "long-term unemployed workers" stay so high? When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

But there is some good news.

When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today, the price of an ounce of gold is over $1700.

The era of great prosperity that America has enjoyed for so long is coming to an end.

In fact, our long-term economic decline is about to accelerate.

So enjoy this "bubble of hope" while you can, because it won't last long.

As I have written about previously, many are warning that Europe is on the verge of a nightmarish financial crisis that could potentially plunge us into a global recession even worse than 2008.

So let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.

Alaskan Fishing Lodge Sign o' the Day

→ Doug Ross @ Journal | 5 Feb 2012 | 2:44 pm MST

Warmal Colding strikes Europe: record cold snap kills hundreds; thousands trapped by "heaviest snow... ever recorded"

→ Doug Ross @ Journal | 5 Feb 2012 | 2:26 pm MST

Bosnian authorities on Sunday used helicopters to evacuate sick people and deliver food to thousands of people who have been cut off by the heaviest snow the country has ever recorded... Across Eastern Europe thousands of people were digging themselves out from heavy snow that followed a weeklong cold snap that has killed hundreds.

More than 100 remote Bosnian villages are cut off by snow over 6 1/2 feet high in the mountains. More than three feet has fallen in the capital Sarajevo, where a state of emergency has been declared...

London's Heathrow Airport—Europe's busiest—canceled a third of Sunday's flights and warned of delays amid heavy fog.

...Rome is struggling under its first heavy snowfall in 26 years, and snow has also fallen on Spain's Balearic islands in the Mediterranean... Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday said the snowfall was beautiful, but he is wishing spring will come soon.

Is school prison?

→ Maggie's Farm | 5 Feb 2012 | 12:59 pm MST

Peter Gray's Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education - Forced education interferes with children's abilities to educate themselves is a foundation for a good debate. He says:

... here's another term that I think deserves to be said out loud: Forced education. Like the term prison, this term sounds harsh. But, again, if we have compulsory education, then we have forced education. The term compulsory, if it has any meaning at all, means that the person has no choice about it.

The question worth debating is this: Is forced education--and the consequential imprisonment of children--a good thing or a bad thing? Most people seem to believe that it is, all in all, a good thing; but I think that it is, all in all, a bad thing. I outline here some of the reasons why I think this, in a list of what I refer to as "seven sins" of our system of forced education...

AVI in Education Changes is sympathetic to Gray's case, and does not wish his kids to have the (seemingly very good) college experience that he had. He says

...what hit me hardest about Grey's essay was what it described about me. I really was one of those who thought my role was to be amazingly brilliant and wait for someone to discover me. I really did think I was better than most of the rest of you. To see in print that this is what our current system encourages in the personalities of some bright students - and to be ready to hear that - was unpleasant. I use my education to entertain myself and others. The only direct application to my job or any useful activities is my ability to string sentences together - which may come more from reading rather than going to school.

Related from Sipp on home schooling: Bin Laden; Joe Biden; Whatever

Progressivism on Parade

→ Big Lizards | 5 Feb 2012 | 2:14 am MST

I love travelogues. I love cooking shows. I love anything to do with barbecue. Hence it was a no-brainer that I would record a show on BBC America about somebody named "Jamie" traveling through the United States and competing in Pigfest, a major barbecue cook-off.

It didn't hurt that I misunderstood and somehow got the impression that the host was James May from Top Gear (who has also done travelogues). Turns out it was one Jamie Oliver, but no matter; if he wasn't the ascerbic and witty May, at least he was an actual chef, who has a cooking show on BBC titled the Naked Chef, which I've never seen.

What I didn't realize was that Jamie Oliver is also a liberal, anti-white bigot -- and a bloody fool, even by liberal-Progressivist standards.

In this travelogue, Oliver drove a camper through Georgia and then down into Florida for the cook-off. In the Georgia section, he dropped in (with advance notice and permission, one assumes) on (i) a white family of hunters; (ii) a group of white, atavistic trolls huddled under a bridge awaiting a lonely wanderer to waylay; (iii) the black owner and black pit boss of a barbecue joint; (iv) a genteel ladies' cake society; and (v) the female owner of a soul-food restaurant. (I omit the races of the last two because they're obvious.)

His first stop with the hunters turned into a bizarre commercial for Britain's National Health Service. When the doyenne of the hunter-gatherer tribe complains that she has lost her health insurance due to the recession, Oliver leaps into the breach to note, smugly, that in England, "health care is totally free... you don't have to pay anything!"

Really! So the money for the NHS simply materializes from thin air? Nobody has to, for example, pay staggering and exhorbitant taxes? There are no problems with rationing health care, denying vital procedures for seniors because they won't live very much longer anyway, refusing to authorize painkillers because they're worried an 87 year old dying cancer patient may become "hooked," sheer incompetence, involuntary euthanasia, and good, old-fashioned death panels? Nothing of the sort -- it was all a dream...

Marveling to the camera some hours later, Jamie Oliver extolls the British system of "free" health care: "I never even thought about it," he muses, with a shake of his head and a tear in his eye. And yes, I do believe him: He never has.

Later, under a bridge and next to a burning 55-gallon drum, Oliver entraps one of the trolls into using That Word as part of a silly, unfunny joke; he clearly entices them.

But in a later segment with the soul-fooder, Oliver tremulously tattles what he heard (using the phrase "the N-word," of course), eliciting a sorrowful shake of her soulship's head. "It's still the South," she explains in that pained, world-weary way I have so often heard from black women who want us to believe that Jim Crow is alive and secretly plotting a return to slavery; "there's the hairy, hidden hand of the white man," as Louis Farrakhan once put it, "working the machinations behind the scenes." (Institutionalized racism! Exchanging white sheets for black robes! Code words!)

In response to Oliver's probing about personal experiences of racism, she describes an instance where she drove to some carpark, where she espied a truck festooned with a Confederate battle flag, a gun rack (no indication whether it was full or empty), and, she claimed, a bumper sticker that read, "Hey, [N-word], Lincoln lied: We don't owe you no forty acres and a mule!"

Mull that for a bit and keep it in mind.

Later, Oliver monologues to the camera yet again, back in the safety of his camper, singing the vile racism that lurks just beneath the epidermis of all American whites; he repeatedly references American chattel slavery, seemingly oblivious to the fact that black slavery was ubiquitous in the world until the nineteenth century -- yes, even in Great Britain.

Sternly looks he into the camera's eye and intones, in his best imitation of Richard Burton as the psychiatrist in Equus, that the Ku Klux Klan still exists in America; for the soul-fooder actually encountered one of them. (He was referring to M'Lady's truck with the Stars and Bars and the alleged offensive bumper sticker.)

So what do I now know about Jamie Oliver?

1. He is an America basher, hunting for anything disreputable that he can use to bash the U.S.A.
2. He utterly buys into the liberal myth that race is the most fundamental divide in America; that no race is superior or inferior to any other -- except that white southerners are louts and crackers and surely inferior to blacks, Hispanics, and other races.
3. He buys into every liberal-Progressivist canard about such leftist policies as nationalized health care: It's wonderfully good medical care; it serves everybody; there's no penalty for pre-existing conditions; and it's all totally free. England, "this precious stone set in the silver sea," is surely the Philosophers' Stone, that turneth base metal into gold!
4. Jamie Oliver thinks anyone flying the Stars and Bars -- in the South! -- and (allegedly) affixing rude stickers to his bumper is a dues-paying, whisky swilling, loyal member of the KKK.
5. Ergo, Jamie Oliver is a blooming idiot.

But he's a very special type of idiot: He is yet another victim of liberal metaprogramming, a wildly successful propaganda play that strikes at the disabled -- the mentally disabled -- convincing them that anyone who disagrees with the (infinitely malleable) core axioms of liberalism or Progressivism is so ignorant, insane, or immoral that those "of the body" never need even to listen to their arguments. In fact, it's best not to listen, because antiliberalism is so spiritually toxic that merely hearing it is sufficient to putrify the liberal soul.

It's not a philosophy or even an ideology; it's a libertine lifestyle harnessed to a universal excuse machine, driven by a willful program to diminish the mental capacity of its victims, thus making them politically pliant and loyal to the point of mania to the Liberal in Chief, whoever he happens to be at a particular point of space-time. (Always a "he," feminism notwithstanding.)

Liberals need educating. Progressivists need reforming (and penance). But liberalism and Progressivism themselves, as strategies for world dominance, must be expunged.

The Looney Tunes Version of the GOP Campaigns

→ Warning Signs | 4 Feb 2012 | 7:43 pm MST

My favorite Looney Tunes Characters (c) Warner Brothers

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Is the Department of Defense Lying to Us Again?

→ Most recent blog entries | 4 Feb 2012 | 6:04 am MST

The Department of Defense official announcement:

The Department of Defense announced toda annouced the death of a the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

 Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus, 22, of Greenville, Miss., died Feb. 1 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. 

This incident is under investigation.

The Jackson Clarion Ledger's report:

Mississippi's first casualty this year from the war in Afghanistan died at the hands of an Afghan soldier who was guarding a joint operating base with him in the Helmand province, officials said. ...

"He's not just another dead soldier," said childhood friend Kayla Bevill. "He wasn't killed by 'the enemy.' He was killed by someone that was supposed to be helping him guard, and that's what hurts the most."

Next most hurtful thing is the DoD's Big Lie machine in action. "Combat operations"?

'... the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit'

→ Hyscience | 3 Feb 2012 | 6:13 pm MST

Via Kathryn Jean Lopez, an update on the silencing of the chaplains post from earlier: A spokesman for the Army tells National Review Online:

... the Army became aware of the Archbishop's letter last Friday (Jan. 27) and was concerned that the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting. The Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass. The Army greatly appreciates the Archbishop's consideration of the military's perspective and is satisfied with the resolution upon which they agreed.

So, not only is the Obama administration mandating health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception - a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution, it's now mandating what can be said from the pulpit!

Awesome Friday Video

→ The Liberty Zone | 3 Feb 2012 | 5:39 pm MST

Super Bowl anti-gun assclownery

→ The Liberty Zone | 3 Feb 2012 | 4:01 pm MST

Cartoon Round Up

→ Warning Signs | 3 Feb 2012 | 3:28 pm MST

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Mark Steyn On Obama Wanting To Be His "Brother's Keeper"

→ Hyscience | 3 Feb 2012 | 1:25 pm MST

While espousing Biblical principles at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, Barack Obama exclaimed, "We are our brother's keeper." Note that he used the collective "we" and made no mention of his actual brother or of his responsibilities to him.

Since then, author Mark Steyn has inserted some truths in the president's speech and has a reminder for him: His 'brother' is back in Kenya living on $12 a year:

... Obama's comments leave much to be desired, particularly when it comes to the presidents own brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives on $12 a year in Kenya.

"Oh give me a break," Steyn said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show on Thursday night. "For a start, when he says, 'I am my brother's keeper,' his brother is back in Kenya living on $12 a year. That's what he was living on at the time of the 2008 election. So all the president has to do in terms of shared responsibility is put a $10 bill in an envelope and mail it to Nairobi or Mombasa or wherever and he will double his brother's salary."

At issue is the Obama administration's effort to require Catholic institutions to provide contraception. Steyn explained this is part of "big government" trying to supplant the church as a source of "moral authority."

"This version of shared responsibility means the state should be your 'brother's keeper,'" he said. "And this is the point for the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is one thing, but big government means the state as church, the sole legitimate source of moral authority whether it's on contraception or gay marriage or abortion or any of the rest. And that's what you see in Europe. Big government drives out other sources of moral authority."

Steyn's comments are thought-provoking, as they usually are. His last statement, though, could easily be reversed: The decline of other sources of moral authority enables big government. It's a chicken-egg dilemma: Did we first abandon a belief in the authority of church and family, leaving a hole for government to fill? Or did the government gradually usurp the authority of church and family, leading church and family to abdicate responsibility?

A Short Review of Obama's Agenda

→ Warning Signs | 3 Feb 2012 | 9:01 am MST

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

The Battle over Boykin at West Point

→ Most recent blog entries | 3 Feb 2012 | 7:11 am MST

Syria: Dictatorship 101

→ Warning Signs | 2 Feb 2012 | 8:04 am MST

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

The Vaughn Difference

→ The Liberty Zone | 31 Jan 2012 | 8:14 pm MST

Metaphysical Musings Upon the Cosmic Newtonian Doom

→ Big Lizards | 31 Jan 2012 | 6:50 pm MST

I am completely convinced that, should Newt Gingrich do so well in the remaining primaries that it becomes clear he will be the nominee, then both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney will bow out and clear the decks for Newt's general campaign against Barack H. Obama. In fact, both of them would unhesitatingly campaign on behalf of Gingrich, in the urgent necessity to evict the occupier from la Casa Blanca.

Why? Because both Romney and Santorum are team players who recognize the most important goal is winning -- not picking who gets to be team captain.

But if, perchance -- per very likely chance -- it's Mitt Romney who does so well that after Super Tuesday, it becomes crystal clear that he is going to have sufficient delegates for nomination... I have no confidence whatsoever that Newt Gingrich would concede. On the contrary, I believe Newt would fight on, his attacks on Romney growing more and more vicious as Gingrich becomes more and more desperate.

I believe Newt would fight right up to the convention, and would then make a desperate bid to armtwist delegates into defecting, at least to force a brokered convention. I believe Newt would barnstorm the country, giving impassioned speeches about how evil, dishonest, rich, and corrupt Mitt Romney is (while virutally ignoring Obama), doing his durndest to damage Romney's brand enough that, in Newt's imagination, Romney's delegates realize Mitt can no longer win (now that Newt has so traduced him) -- so they may as well jump ship to the Gingrich campaign. It's Newt or nothing!

Newt's followers will see this as exhilarating, yet more proof that he must be nominated: "Only Newt has the guts to take the fight to Obama, bringing a Newtron bomb to the gunfight at the B.O. Corral, hounding the Occupier in Chief at every stop, willing to say or do anything to win. Why, in the face of Newt's relentless ferocity, surely Obama will drop out of the race in metaphysical terror!"

Of course, those who are not his followers will more likely see the refusal to accept the will of the voters as obsession verging on madness.

In fact, even after the convention, if Romney is nevertheless nominated, I cannot see Gingrich ever campaigning for his rival. Rather, I more easily see Newt, like Teddy Roosevelt, announcing a third-party bid for the presidency -- and with similar results: "I cannot let down all those intrepid, true conservatives who believe in me. We will fight on, and we will win! And even if we don't, at least we will have held true to our sacred principles, which is far more important than mere winning!"

And what if that third-party effort splits the Republican vote, just as it did in 1912, allowing Obama to "Wilson" his way into a second term with a minority of the vote? Well, so mote it be; can't make an omlet without breaking a few legs.

Why do I think this? Because I am convinced that Newt Gingrich sees himself as a rebel with a cause, a holy crusade that transcends all earthly politics: the recreation of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in Newt's own image.

In that sense, he is very like the One he seeks to supplant, seeing himself primarily as a transformative figure in world history, and only secondarily as a Republican. His catachismic incantation of those acts of greatness he will surely perform in his first hundred days is grandiose and more than faintly ludicrous; his skin stretches as thin as Obama's, perhaps thinner; Newt sees himself as the smartest guy in every room, whose ranging brilliance untethers him from party, ideology, principle, and internal consistency. He is large; he contains multitudes. Newt Gingrich stands beyond conservatism and liberalism, beyond Right and Left, beyond good and evil.

Newt is Nietzschean, the mouth of destiny. And if thwarted, he could decide to pull the temple down upon all our heads, to punish Mankind for snubbing its messiah. Now it's personal!

I did not form these musings before he jumped into the race; I've always rather liked him, especially because of his science-fiction connection. I was enthusiastic when first he decared.

But his cosmic campaign comprised little but cataclysmic explosions and excessive CGI. Just as when I watched Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, I was driven by the frenzied roller-coaster ride (who wants to ride a roller coaster for weeks without cessation?) to this conclusion: Newt Gingrich is our Barack Obama.

I hope that, unlike their Barack Obama, Newt returns to sanity and realizes that, especially with the trouncing in Florida, he simply cannot win the nomination. Why? Because it is increasingly clear that Newt could only win the general in the unlikely event that Obama so alienates himself from the entire electorate, even from his own wretched, corrupt party, that the Republican nominee essentially runs unopposed.

We may hope for such a turn of events, but hoping for the best of all worlds is not a viable electoral strategy. Better to nominate someone who has demonstrated not only ferocity but also gravitas, who is not a scrappy, fist-fightin' rebel (with or without) but is instead presidential. That generally works much better for Republican nominees.

General Boykin and the War for Muslim Outreach Redux

→ Most recent blog entries | 31 Jan 2012 | 5:56 am MST

Eight years and three months ago, I wrote a column inspired by the furor over statements by General William Boykin attesting to the religious dimension of the so-called war on terror. The thought that there might be a religious dimension to Islamic terrorism is, absurdly and disastrously,  the Big No-No-No of our age (as noted once or twice in my body of work). That a devout Christian might appreciate the religious dimension of Islamic terrorism and express it in Christian terms is similarly verboten. And if he dare express it in the uniform of the country that expunges this key piece of the strategic puzzle, doctrinally, historically culturally, in its official war- and policy-making capacities,. "furor" breaks out.

Back then, I decided to imagine how future historians might explain this early controversy in the "war on terror."

"The 'war on terror,' later rechristened -- sorry, renamed -- the 'war for Muslim outreach,' began on Sept. 16, 2001, the day President George W. Bush carelessly spoke of a 'crusade.' His remark was heard neither as an echo of Dwight D. Eisenhower's World War II book 'Crusade in Europe,' nor as a sober pledge to avenge thousands of American dead still smoldering at Ground Zero -- victims, as Muslims on the outer reaches would reveal, of a joint CIA-Mossad plot. Instead, the word 'crusade' was perceived as a calculated insult to all of Islam still stewing over Holy Land incursions by Really Old Europe a millennium earlier.

"Early victories in the war for Muslim outreach were small but significant, such as forcing a new name onto 'Operation Infinite Justice,' the distinctly dis-lamic moniker for the war in Afghanistan. This was necessary, of course, since it is Allah who dispenses infinite justice, not the United States military. It wasn't long before 'Islam is love' was the word from the president, and post-Sept. 16 outreach included annual Ramadan suppers at the White House. ...

"Then along came Gen. Boykin. In every war, there are generals who want to fight an earlier war. This was true of Gen. Boykin. He wanted to fight the war of Sept. 11, the attack that is now, of course, but a tiny footnote to Sept. 16th, Death to Crusades Day, the first new national holiday since Martin Luther King Day.

"Gen. Boykin saw in the emergence of Muslim terror networks a resumption of the old wars of Islamic expansion against the Judeo-Christian West. And he saw fit to explain his vision in stark religious terms when he spoke in American Christian churches. Islamic terrorists hate the United States, he said in June 2003, 'because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. And the enemy is a guy named Satan.' When such statements became public through the now-defunct Los Angeles Times, all hell, pardon the expression, broke loose, spreading a plague of damning liberal editorials, columns and statements.

"General Boykin, the New York Times editorialized in calling for his head, 'should not be ... providing ammunition for those who portray the war against terror as a war against Islam.' (Note the implicit denial of the specifically Islamic character of the terrorism aimed at the non-Islamic West -- a semantic victory dating back to early outreach.) Fareed Zakaria, a Washington columnist of the day, suggested Gen. Boykin be fired simply to assuage Arab/Islamic suspicions of the United States. Others compared the American officer's biblical perspective with that of holy war-mongering Osama bin Laden.

"But it was the president himself who may have tipped the balance when he rejected even the basis of the three-star general's worldview -- that the war on terrorism had its undeniable religious dimension in being a response to Islamic jihad on the West, a civilization with Judeo-Christian roots.

"Some say that was the point at which outreach trumped terrorism as the war's priority. Once Gen. Boykin was history it was just a matter of time before Hamas had its AWACS, and jailed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr was installed as supreme ayatollah of the United Nations Mandate of Iraq. Soon, the [battle] for high U.S. poll numbers throughout Muslim culture -- was ours."

In retrospect, of course, I realize outreach trumped terrorism from Day 1. General Boykin survived the squall, retiring from the military in 2007. (Full disclosure: he and I and 17 others are co-authors of the Team B II report, Shariah: The Threat to America.) Hamas doesn't have its AWACS yet, although it does has the public relations equivalent in the prominence of Hamas-linked CAIR as a public voice in the US (as seen below). Sadr is a major power in Iraq, where the UN is nowhere to be seen. But the squall -- the war for Muslim outreach -- continues to intensify.

After accepting an invitation to speak at West Point's National Prayer Breakfast on February 8, General Boykin has withdrawn from the event following what the New York Times calls "a growing list of liberal veterans’ groups, civil liberties advocates and Muslim organizations called on the Military Academy to rescind the invitation." West Point issued a statement saying, “In fulfilling its commitment to the community, the United States Military Academy will feature another speaker for the event.”

No doubt "another speaker" pre-approved by the liberal veterans' groups, civil liberties advocates and Muslim organizations.

The Times story continues (links from the original):

General Boykin, a longtime commander of Special Operations forces, first caused controversy after the Sept. 11 attacks when, as a senior Pentagon official, he described the fight against terrorism as a Christian battle against Satan. His remarks, made in numerous speeches to church groups, were publicly repudiated by President George W. Bush, who argued that America’s war was not with Islam but with violent fanatics.

...who just happened to be weaponizing mainstream, specifically Islamic teachings regarding the requirement to make war (jihad) on the infidel.

Since his retirement in 2007 and a new career as a popular conservative Christian speaker, General Boykin has described Islam as “a totalitarian way of life” and said that Islam should not be protected under the First Amendment.

I am not familiar with General Boykin's arguments regarding First Amendment protection and Islam. The short quotation attributed to him on this subject states Islam "is not just a religion, it is a totalitarian way of life," and thus not eligible for such protection. Given the "doubly totalitarian" aspects of Islam (global and personal controls) as codified, for example, in Islamic law (sharia),  this point is surely debatable -- or would be in a country not already under Islamic strictures against free inquiry into Islam. But no. Boykin's opinion about a legitimate topic of discussion is cause for ejecting him from West Point. The effect is to marginalize further the quest for open debate about Islam and its threat to liberty -- and to marginalize further those who seek it.

Last week, after learning that General Boykin would be speaking at the prayer breakfast, a liberal veterans’ group, VoteVets.org, demanded that the invitation be revoked. In a letter to West Point’s superintendent, the group said General Boykin’s “incendiary rhetoric regarding Islam” was “incompatible with Army values” and would “put our troops in danger.”

Lt. Col. Sherri Reed, West Point’s director of public affairs, defended the invitation on Friday, saying that “cadets are purposefully exposed to different perspectives” and that the breakfast “will be pluralistic with Christians, Jewish and Muslim cadets participating.”

Seeking safety in pluralism. United We Stand?

Hah.

But by Monday, several other groups had condemned the invitation and concern was also reportedly being voiced by some faculty members and cadets. The Forum on the Military Chaplaincy (a liberal group of retired military chaplains), the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations made public appeals to the Pentagon to cancel General Boykin’s appearance.

That was quick.

FYI, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land terror financing trial in which evidence was introduced defining CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

A fourth-year cadet at West Point, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals for breaking military discipline, said in a telephone interview before the cancellation was announced that “people are definitely talking about it here.”

He feared reprisals? For what -- mopping-up operations in the war for Muslim Outreach?

“They’re inviting someone who’s openly criticizing a religion that is practiced on campus,” he said. “I know Muslim cadets here, and they are great, outstanding citizens, and this ex-general is saying they shouldn’t enjoy the same rights.”

Not to speak for the general, but the problem on campus begins when Islam's supremacist, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-female teachings are obscured and denied to a point of non-deniable parity with other religions.

The cadet asked, “Are we supposed to take leadership qualities and experience from this guy, to follow in his footsteps?”

A similar controversy erupted last week, in the days before General Boykin spoke at the mayor’s annual prayer breakfast in Ocean City, Md. The general made no inflammatory statements about Islam, instead describing how prayer had helped him through dangerous military operations.

But Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, said the West Point invitation was a mistake. West Point, Mr. Montgomery said, would have given “a platform to someone who is publicly identified with offensive comments about Muslims and about the commander in chief.”

Poof. Open criticism of a demonstrably aggressive and liberty-hostile religio-politico movement is reduced to "offensive comments about Muslims" and thus forbidden. And, by the way. never, ever criticize "the commander in chief." Our comissars -- CAIR, PAW, VoteVets.Org and the rest of the Islamo-Socialist Left --won't permit it.

Ken Vaughn and Service to America

→ The Liberty Zone | 30 Jan 2012 | 4:46 pm MST

Newtmax.com Regurgitated

→ Big Lizards | 30 Jan 2012 | 4:38 pm MST

Just a brief update on our last post, Newtmax.com: Today marks the fourth straight day of Newsmax.com nakedly shilling for Newt Gingrich.

There are a few stories on today's Newsmax page that neither bash Romney nor slather praise on Gingrich (like an overly generous schmear on a bagel). Mirabile dictu! Nevertheless, without exception, every single story that relates to the primary either portrays Mitt as a dimwitted orc or worships at the feet of old Saint Newt.

I used to jape that Newsmax was the National Enquirer of conservative websites. I believe I must amend that: Newsmax has become the ThinkProgress of conservative websites.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

→ The Liberty Zone | 30 Jan 2012 | 7:19 am MST

Afghan Lawmaker to France: Quit Your Bellyaching

→ Most recent blog entries | 28 Jan 2012 | 10:42 am MST

France has decided to pull out of Afghanistan in 2013, only one year early, following the recent killings of six French troops at the hands of their (and our) wonderful uniformed Afghan allies.

The decision hasn't gone over too well with Afghan MP Tahira Mujadedi, who argues that Afghan forces are not (all together now) ready to go it alone. As for those recently murdered sons of France, Miz Mujadedi isn't exactly overflowing with condolences or mea culpas (does that even translate into Dari or Pashto?)

"When military forces are present in a war zone, anything can happen," she said. The French troops "are not here for a holiday," she added.

Sacrebleu.

Newtmax.com

→ Big Lizards | 27 Jan 2012 | 1:57 pm MST

Heh. Here are the headline story and all of the Inside Cover stories on Newsmax.com right now:

Headline:

Romney Backed by Goldman Sachs, Bailout Banks

More Stories (highlighted stories immediately below headline):

• Rev. Wildmon: Gingrich Can 'Fix' America
• Mark Levin: Gingrich Is Strong Conservative
• Discrepancies Found in Romney's Finances
• Romney Attacked Ted Kennedy Over ‘Blind Trust’

Smiley picture of Mitt Romney with following caption:

Inside Cover (front-page stories immediately below smiley Mitt):

• McFarlane, Shirley: Newt an 'Enthusiastic' Reagan backer
• Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney
• Rush: Romney Camp Behind Anti-Gingrich Stories
• Gingrich Ad: Romney Dishonest
• Palin: Newt 'Crucified' By Romney Allies, GOP
• Romney Backed by Goldman Sachs, Bailout Banks
• Romney Attacked Ted Kennedy Over ‘Blind Trust’
• Bill O'Reilly: Gingrich 'Bona Fide' Conservative
• Rev. Wildmon: Gingrich Can 'Fix' America
• Mark Levin: Gingrich Is Strong Conservative
• Conservative Establishment Gunning for Newt
• Short on Cash, Santorum Hanging on
• Discrepancies Found in Romney's Finances
• Obama: GOP Will Struggle to Defend Economy
• Gingrich:Use Reagan Model After Castro Gone

As Gen. Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) might have said, "Mr. President, we must not allow -- a media-bias gap!"

My favorite line in the anti-Romney philippic: After the picture caption quotes Romney as noting that all of his investments are in a blind trust, ergo he had no say over the investment in Goldman Sachs, one of the Inside Cover stories (promoted to More Stories) is the cleverly headlined, "Romney Attacked Ted Kennedy Over ‘Blind Trust’."

Obscur, Monsieur Ruddy; très obscur!

South Carolina's Newtron Bomb: Part 3 - The Rift in the Newt

→ Big Lizards | 26 Jan 2012 | 8:33 pm MST

Republicans in general and conservatives in particular should demand that Newt Gingrich start demonstrating some discipline -- and that Mitt Romney start showing some flexibility and spine. Newt habitually displays woefully too little discipline, while Mitt habitually has vastly too much! Dang, if we could only average them out...

Romney tends to overregulate himself, never stepping "outside the box." Newt Gingrich, alas, lives eternally outside the box that his fellow citizens inhabit.

Romney, the obverse, that boy needs to get out more and start showing us ideas that haven't already been gummed to death by everybody else first. But Newt, the reverse, needs to find his way back to the actual mainstream of America (whch is much more conservative than the mainstream of journalism). Come back, Newt, and all will be forgiven!

At this point, I'm more afraid of a Gingrich nomination and even a Gingrich presidency than a Romney nomination and presidency. It's akin to my reaction to the two main political parties: I have about as many disagreements with the GOP as I do with the Democrats; but the things I hate about the latter seem much more dangerous to me than the things I hate about the former.

Same with Mitt vs. Newt: The latter's savage, unfair, and leftist attacks on Capitalism itself, and his j'accuse against Romney for being "anti-immigrant" (which is liberal code for "racist") are far more damaging to the American experiment than are Romney's attacks on Gingrich for his (nonexistent) ethical lapses as Speaker or on Newt's lobbying -- as I now believe, having changed my mind since a few weeks ago -- for Freddie Mac.

Romney's transgressions damage only Newt Gingrich, or possibly himself, if there's blowback; but Newt's attacks strike at the very heart of the distinction between Right and Left: If conservatism can be deformed to encompass class warfare, racial favoritism, and hostility towards the normal functioning of Capitalism, then what is left of the ideology?

To me, today's Newt is more dangerous than today's Mitt: dangerous to the success of the presidential and related elections; to the presidency itself; and even to the Great Dichotomy between Right and Left -- Capitalism vs. command; individualism vs. collectivism; republicanism vs. authoritarian parliamentarianism; American exceptionalism vs. national homogenization leading towards one-world government. If today's Newt is nominated and even if he is elected, it will be a disaster for those of us who desperately cling to that which makes America different from all other nations.

But I'm holding out hope for tomorrow's Newt. If tomorrow's Newt can lasso his wild horses and start showing discipline and consistency in his rhetoric, adverts, and especially his attacks on Romney (he can still go over the top attacking Obama); if he can begin thinking not only broadly but deeply; if he can if he can start seeing his candidacy less as reviving Gingrich and more as restoring America; then my balancing act between Romney's timidity and Gingrich's mania might start tipping back towards the latter.

(Alternatively, if Mitt become bolder and more effectively aggressive about pushing a pro-growth, revivalist, and more American vision of America, then I might show even more enthusiasm for his candidacy.)

But honestly, both those candidates deserve a stern "come to Jesus" meeting for serially violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment.

What a pair! But given the alternatives, with Rick Santorum fading into the wallpaper and Ron Paul heading further and further off the wall, we're going to have to nominate one of those four-letter words, Mitt or Newt.

Our only hope is the sheer ferocity of Barack H. Obama's hatred of a strong and prosperous America and of mainstream Americans. Once we have a nominee, and assuming the loser will join the winner's campaign, we still have an excellent (much better than even) chance of ensuring that the obamachete is a one-term germ.

Our previous forrays into the eye of Newt and mitt of Romney can be found here:

• South Carolina's Newtron Bomb: Part 1 - the Unbreakable Thread
• South Carolina's Newtron Bomb: Part 2 - Newt In the Box