North Waziristan. Where consultants go to die.

Najmiddin Kamolitdinovic Jalolov, also known as Yahyo, was killed on Monday when a pilotless U.S. drone aircraft fired a missile at a truck near the town of Mir Ali, which has for years been known as a militant sanctuary, the officials said,

Sanctuary. Another one of those terms like "safe-house" that up till now I thought was something other than what it apparently seems to be.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:52 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

If the democrats are smart (not likely), they'd consider this and adjust the message accordingly. Only 12% of the public buys into the notion that protests against ObamaCare are racist motivated.

Ferchrisakes, there's more people believe in UFO's and 600 year old Illuminati conspiracies than that. 12% doesn't even get you all the rabid moonbat left.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:24 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

I really, really am against overheated rhetoric that might encourage or give moral succor to those unbalanced enough -- the desperate loners with nothing left to lose -- to commit violence.

I was against it through 2008. I certainly cannot, and will not, speak ambiguously about it now.

Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought -- such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush... well, bonus, eh?

But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won't put any evil thoughts (or more likely -- reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.

And it's that few we worry about.

So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it's convenient for her and another when it's not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.

In this particular case -- at least regarding the general claim she's making -- she's right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.

Here's where I disagree with her: Not just when an archliberal Democrat is President. But when anyone is President.

I have long disliked the "FASCIST" claims, not just when they came every single day from the left, but now, too, as they come from the right.

There are several problems with the word.

1. It's not true. Obama is not a fascist. He has done things on occasion that one can credibly argue tended in a fascist direction -- first thing that comes to mind? those Missouri prosecutors threatening to vaguely "Go after" anyone accusing Obama of false charges, like (giggle) that he would raise taxes on the middle class -- but an actual fascist? No.

2. It tends to suggest violence is the only means of political expression. If it were true that any president were a fascist, then... well, democratic society is dead, isn't it? We live in a tyranny. The normal respect we give to civil, civic means of political jockeying is dead and buried. Not only are we freed from the usual moral and legal restraints against political violence, but... well, we might say we're morally obligated to commit political violence, no?

Now, I doubt that many people carrying "FASCIST" signs think this way. Some, but not many. Most are just using it as an empty slogan, the same as many on the left did just one short year ago. But that's the thing, then, isn't it? If you know it's not true, why are you carrying the sign? Honesty and straight-dealing are conservative values, too.

And if you know it's not true, why are you even taking a chance that you might encourage some desperate loser with a gun who does believe the sign?

Bear in mind no assassin sees himself as assassin. Not primarily. Assassins see themselves as heroes and liberators.

This is the problem I had when the left claimed we were living under tyranny-- they were encouraging nutcases to believe they'd be greeted as a hero if they just killed Bush. (To be frank -- they would have been, by large swaths of the left.)

And it disgusted me then. And I am a partisan and hypocrite, so I admit, it does not disgust me as much now, as I will always give "my side" a bit of a break, but it's dangerous and I don't like it much better now.

Further, it's politically toxic rhetoric, anyway:

3. It turns off crucial voters. As John Lennon said, "And if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

Or, less lyrically: The way you persuade a voter to your cause is to keep the initial intellectual buy-in as low as possible. The same way you'd induce a casual player to play poker -- you don't tell him it's $50 minimum bet, $150 maximum raise. You bring him into a low-stakes game with a tiny buy-in.

Schwarzenegger is a RINO, but the speech he gave at the 2004 RNC was brilliant. It kept the intellectual buy-in to becoming a Republican small. He would say: "Are you for paying less in taxes? Then guess what, you're a Republican. Are you for keeping our country strong and safe? Then guess what, you're a Republican."

And so on. He offered a series of small buy-ins into the movement -- buy-ins that most people would gladly accept.

He didn't offer a big buy-in like, "Do you want to defund the Department of Education entirely and pull our troops back from every base and every treaty obligation in the world?," as Ron -- I'm sorry, Doctor -- Paul might say.

Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul on those things is irrelevant. The point is, when seeking converts, it's all about baby steps, not asking someone to suddenly accept a sprawling and strident ideological framework all in one sitting.

Not to be crude, but remember "Let me just put in the tip for three seconds to see how it feels?" Yeah, that tended to work. Proposing that a virgin's first sexual encounter would be a six-hour bukkake marathon does not.

And this "Fascist" and "Tyranny" stuff is quite the opposite of baby steps. People can look out their window and see no Kristalnacht unfolding. They go to their videostores and rent porno tapes just like they always did, without some black-helmeted Social Hygiene Trooper beating the teeth out of their mouths. They drive to work and drop the kids off at school and have sex once a month with their wives just like they always did before, all without giant television screens beaming Big Brother's ever-vigilant eyes at them.

Telling them that since January 2009 they've been living in a "tyranny" under a "fascist" dictator is simply not true, and they know it.

If an undecided voter sees this, then your first impression with a possible recruit is that you flat-out, transparently lied to them. Good luck trying to sell your second and third arguments after that.

So even trying to sell this sort of rhetoric is counterproductive -- you are telling someone, basically, that in order to be a conservative or vote Republican, they have to accept a towering superstructure of cant and ideology, some of which they can see with the witness of their own eyes does not accord with reality as they know it.

Rather than telling them something rather elementary and inarguable and baby-steppish, like, "Obama has blown up the deficit more than all other presidents combined."

You don't have to be a political genius to comprehend that the latter statement is a small buy-in that invites new players into the game, while the former is a forbiddingly steep buy-in that tells people stay away.

So not only is such rhetoric false, not only does it lend itself to inciting crazies and invite valid criticisms from the left, it is actually politically counterproductive.

It's catharsis for the person carrying the sign, sure, but if your goal is not merely a cathartic primal scream but actual positive action that will change things, best to save the catharsis for home and go out into the streets with signs advertising a friendlier and more newbie-friendly message.

By the Way: If the GOP/conservative movement were merely a protest movement, I might think differently. I might think, "Ah, what the hell, let people have their catharsis, let them blow off steam to maintain their psychic balance; who cares, we can't win anyway." (At least I'd think that regarding the turn-off-the-centrists thing -- I'd still be against incitement.)

But here's the thing: About three months ago we stopped being a pure protest party and became a party poised to win the 2010 midterms, possibly even retaking the House, and we no longer live under the idea that we have seven years of Obama left.

Although there's a 60% chance of that, I'd say, there's a 40% chance we have only three year left with this idiot. And the odds seem to get better for us every day.

So we're not merely a protest party, we're not merely here for catharsis and futile primal screaming. We have a pretty decent chance of winning back the country in the near future, and we should behave as such -- a responsible, serious-minded party/movement that's interested in actually governing a fractious and troublesome nation, not of a bunch of guys who seem chiefly in it to yell silly crap.

And the fascist/tyranny stuff does not project that image. It projects the image of a party dominated by fantasists who live in a dream world rather than the real one. Dungeons & Dragons for the politically-minded.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 1523 words, total size 9 kb.

Violence from the right, she of course means, but does that make sense?

We are winning at the moment. We are in the best shape we've been in in three years. We are, possibly, on the way to a very successful midterm.

Why would we, the guys winning through rhetoric and politicking, turn to violence, historically the tool of crazies and those who feel they have no other outlet?

Yes, there are crazies on the right -- just as there are crazies on the left, but I don't remember anyone telling the lefties to tone it down with their BUSH = MURDERER incitements.

As a general rule, and as a particular rule, I encourage everyone to avoid seriously emotional incitements like that, which could encourage a mentally unbalanced person.

But I am also sort of aghast at the notion that only some lives are worth protecting through the moderation of rhetoric.

And of course she is echoing Ari Fleisher's "Watch what we say" line here, but when she says it, it's unobjectionable and just promoting "safety" and civility, but when Fleisher said it it was creeping galloping fascism.

I can't help but suspect her tears are for the sorry state the Democratic Caucus finds itself in, not over the prospect of right-wing crazies shooting people up.

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

David Fredoso at the Washington Examiner has it.

See the list of the 75 Child Sex Slave Enthusiasts there.

Mr. President...? Your signature is requested. And no, you can't sign "present."*

* Okay, actually this is almost certainly an amendment to some spending bill, so he doesn't have to sign the amendment per se, but whatever. I'm tired.

Darryl Issa Punks the Democratic Caucus? I thought Nancy Pennywise had the power to stop a vote by just not putting it on the docket.

Not sure about that. But here is a comment by "Tee," which implies Issa snuck in the amendment and no one caught it in time:

Rep. Issia added the acorn de-funding onto the college loan bill knowing that bill would pass and no one took it out before it came to the floor. lmao that's one R that I will send some cash to hard to believe he's from Cali.

I don't know if that's right, I am just passing it on.

Oversold? Gabe tips me that in the Senate they slipped the amendment into a HUD bill that didn't provide any money for ACORN. So I don't know that these amendments apply to all other spending or just the spending in the bill -- in the latter case, may be of very limited usefulness, except forcing Democrats to admit by their votes ACORN should be defunded when a bill that actually affects them comes up.

I do not know. I am more ignorant than usual.

A Moron Answering a Question:

Gabe asked me: Question: In your latest post, what does "de-fund" mean? Does it just block all current appropriations directed to ACORN or does the bill say (as was threatened) that they can never receive federal funds again?

I replied: amendments are refreshed yearly, like the Hyde amendment... so if it
remains an amendment, no, it's just a temporary ban. tho they can keep
it going.

But I won't swear to that. I think to make it "permanent" (at least until it's repealed by another law) they'd have to pass it as a freestanding law, not an amendment to a yearly spending bill that, by definition, lasts a year.

Huh? I'm getting multiple tips about this:

Brooklyn DA sending investigators to filmmakers to see if there are charges that need to be filed against ACORN.

No idea of the source or if it's true. Just shoveling it out there.

This makes little sense to me. O'Keefe is not a lawyer and can't know what charges could be filed. (My thought: None.) And regarding the facts, he's got everything on video.

If this is true, it's a CYA maneuver by the DA to say "We talked to him but he didn't help us with filing charges so we can't."

Unless there is some charge about a tax-assistance person recommending illegality, but that would be a federal rap, not a state one.

"ALL Federal Funds:" That's what Publius says the amendment said at Big Government, which makes sense, because I think the Hyde Amendment says the same sort of thing. Maybe a Correction? WTFCI tells me I'm wrong about this, that the Hyde Amendment only covers Medicaid funding through Health and Human Services. So maybe you do need to add the amendment to every frickin' spending bill funding every frickin' department. But see below.

MUST READ: Byron York answers many questions here.

The Standalone Law is coming, Johanns says.

n the new amendments, Johanns is attempting to bar federal funding for ACORN at some departments that currently do not send any money to the organization. The idea is to make sure that federal funds for ACORN, once banned from the Housing appropriations bill, do not find their way into other parts of the federal budget...

Still in the works is a larger, standalone bill that would bar all federal funding for ACORN. Republicans in the House have already introduced such a measure....

UPDATE:
Johanns told me moments ago that he plans to introduce that standalone bill, called the "Protect Taxpayers from ACORN Act," this afternoon. It would bar all federal funds to ACORN and its affiliates. Johanns says there will be several co-sponsors -- he has asked lawmakers of both parties to sign on. "This is an organization that just continues to dig itself into a deeper and deeper hole," Johanns said of ACORN. "This group needs to be defunded and investigated."

Also: These bills propose defunding all ACORN affiliates (um, fronts), which is of course crucial.

JackM. Weighs In: JackM. knows his onions in this area.

Basically, Issa used a "motion to recommit" with instructions. The
minority has the ability to offer a MtR and Pelosi can't stand in
their way. Normally these fail on party line votes, as the majority
never wants to give up control of the agenda to the minority.

Pelosi could block amendments she doesn't like: the house has a rule
where amendments must be cleared for floor votes by the Rules
Committee. This lets the committee kill anything that is troublesome
to the majority. A lot of the time, the only thing the minority party
gets is a vote on a substitute amendment (the GOP bill, say) which
gets shot down on party lines.

But Pelosi can't stop Motions to Recommit. All she can do is try to
get them defeated. In this case, she got rolled by the GOP and the
Dems who think child sex slavery is a kinda big deal.

Here's some info on Motions to Recommit that might answer the
questions you have about what Issa did.

To be honest that really doesn't illuminate me but now at least I can assign a name to my ignorance.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 991 words, total size 6 kb.

His father tells his story.

You can read about Sergeant First Class Monti at the Army's memorial site.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:31 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 2 kb.

Hooray, we now live in such a safe world we can cancel missile defense and sit down with the peace-loving Mullahs....what's that?.....The IAEA said what?.....Well now, that sure makes us look foolish....what crappy timing we have....not just dissing Poland on the 70th anniversary of Sovietzkrieg....but now even the most toothless dictator-appeasing, nose-on-their-face-ignoring watchdog on earth even says we are in deep shite.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

Maybe we should send them another letter. On a positive note, at least the AP isn't exposing US secrets today

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 09:51 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

If Dingy Harry says it's crap, guess what? You might be looking at some crap.

No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee's chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it's not good enough for Nevada.

Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state's inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.

“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada," Reid said in a statement. "During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding."

Reid said he received assurance from the chairman, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, that the formula would be changed before the bill goes to committee next week.

"I spoke to the Chair of the Finance Committee and he assured me that this bill will be improved for Nevada," Reid said.

"Let me be very clear, I will not bring a health insurance reform bill to the Senate floor that is not good for Nevada.”

The "formula" will simply be changed to subsidize Nevada more at everyone else's expense, thus making it a "good deal for Nevada."

And... how about for everyone else doing the subsidizing?

Harry Reid was considerably more praising of Max Baucus' fine work in a national press release. He did allow there the bill needed to be "strengthened," but he sure didn't say it was "not good for Nevada" when speaking to non-Nevadans.

[Update/Edited Headline by ace; original post by PA follows.]

All the usual caveats, online, non-scientific, self-selected sample, yada yada yada.

Maybe Harry Reid had his staff feverishly stuffing the vote box on this one? He came out recently and said the Baucus plan was a non-starter and needed a lot of tweaking to be acceptable.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:29 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Eh, you can't put much stock in that. It's Boehner saying it. He's just trying to psych up the team.

Oh, wait, it wasn't Boehner saying that. it was Nancy Pelosi.

The 2010 congressional elections will be the "toughest midterm elections Democrats have ever faced," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged today.

Pelosi made the statement in a fundraising pitch for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, urging supporters to help Democrats beat back Republican attacks.

"The Republican defenders of the status quo are shouting because they understand that this is the toughest Midterm Election that Democrats have ever faced," Pelosi wrote, hinting at Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) outburst.

Well, I guess you can't put a whole lot of stock in that, either, because 1, she's saying it to drum up cash, and 2, she's a botoxed bubble-boobed blithering idiot.

Still... I don't know. I guess I'm putting it up because, Hey, easy post.

Bonus: Pelosi Willing to Concede There Are a Few Bad Apples at ACORN: She searches the Clinton-era handbook and comes up with the old gem "inexcusable" and then literally ducks into an elevator when asked if that means she'd actually be willing to allow a vote to impeach ACORN.

Indefensible. Inexcusable. Simply reprehensible.

Something a censure and a three-month time-out should fix, I guess.

Apparently the Garishly-Made Up Evil Clown from It... has heard of ACORN since denying knowledge of it a few hours ago.

Nancy Pennywise? Does that work or is it too strained?

Don't bother telling me it's too juvenile. I know it's too juvenile. Too juvenile is about my speed, especially when it comes to Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants.

Posted by: Ace at 07:56 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis says so in part 5 of this interview on a leftwing Sirius channel.

Yesterday I said that ACORN was merely following the corporate crisis management playbook. That was wrong for two reasons.

First of all, I implied that the crisis management was nothing but PR spin. In most cases, that's not true -- the PR aspect works in tandem with the actually-fixing-the-problem aspect. Most corporations, unless they are fundamentally unreformable, fundamentlally corrupt, or fundamentally suicidal, will endeavor to fix the problem that's caused the existential crisis. They are working hard behind the scenes, which you can't see, to fix things; the PR effort is there to convince the public they're working hard behind the scenes. In most cases this is not merely spin or deception; it's just the only way to communicate what is, by its nature, invisible and unseen by the public.

In most cases, that is. Not in ACORN's case, which brings up the second point.

ACORN is not in fact following the crisis management playbook, because among the rules of crisis management are:

1) Don't spin.

2) Don't blame others for your mistakes.

3) Accept full responsibility.

And the reason for those rules is simple: 1, you have to convince the public you're really serious about fixing the crisis-causing problem, and 2, you have to actually be really serious about fixing the problem if you're actually going to fix it, and obviously if you're tossing out a series of excuses and external scapegoats, how serious can you really be? The fact you're doing that is proof positive you have not in fact come to terms with the fact that you are at fault and you need to change.

ACORN puts on a show about an "independent audit" (conducted by a couple of people actually on ACORN's board, and a Soros-paid idiot, and etc., etc.) but is simultaneously telling other audiences that there is no problem here except the problems that racists are causing.

This is not Big Bertha's first claim to this effect -- and it's not her first claim since supposedly ACORN Got Right With Jesus and decided to reform itself. Even as she's putting out press releases claiming that in three months time, she'll fix all the problems her damn self, she's out there claiming to left-wing audiences that this is nothing but a lynching.

I think we can see from that precisely how series Big Bertie is about fixing the problem.

Unlike genuine crisis management, this effort is purely PR. There is no behind the scenes will to fix things. Oh, I'm sure her workers will be told "Don't talk to white kids posing as improbably fresh-faced street-whores."

But that is not fixing the problem. That is simply attempting to protect the organization from further exposure of the problems.

I have to say, once again, ACORN is being paid to provide tax advice. Even if you toss out the fact that their workers were providing tax advice to child sex-slavers, did anyone get the feeling these were competent individuals giving out sound tax advice?

Or did it seem like these were people with two hours of training and handbook which they had to consult every ten minutes?

The latter, of course. And on top of all that, the advice consisted chiefly of methods of tax evasion and fraudulent filings.

We're supposed to pay for this service? Wouldn't any low-income tax filer have a better chance of getting things right working it out on his own? Even such a person's mistakes would be closer to the mark than what these "IRS partners" advise.

One last point: ACORN crows about how many people it has helped get affordable housing. By "partnering" with banks and helping people fill out mortgage applications and so forth.

Consider the advice they gave regarding taxes.

Now consider all the fraudulent mortgage applications filed by low-income people who bought homes they couldn't possibly afford.

Now consider that such people seemed to know the "right" things to claim on their mortgage applications, the "right" level of income that would justify a mortgage without seeming absurd, etc.

I do not think it is too speculative to hazard a guess that the sort of lie-to-beat-the-system tax "advice" that we as taxpayers paid for is precisely the same kind of lie-to-beat-the-system mortgage application advice.

That we also paid for. Twice. Once when we paid ACORN to provide it, five years later when the system collapsed due to a massive wave of nonpayment of mortgages.

Posted by: Ace at 07:51 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.