Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Democrats are tripping over the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and that there is a cover-up by Hawaiian state officials, among others, who falsely have issued a "certificate of live birth." On the one hand, Democrats and supportive blogs push the issue to the hilt to portray Republicans negatively; on the other hand, Democrats finally are recognizing that their tactics are backfiring.

The Obama-is-not-a-citizen movement started during the campaign, but as David Kuhn writes at Real Clear Politics, discussion of the birth certificate issue has exploded in the past month, pushed mostly by Obama supporters as part of a political tactic against Republicans:

But the treatment of the "birthers" is peculiar. I went on Nexis and did a search of the broad "news" category of the phrase: "birth certificate" and Obama. In the past month there were 564 pieces on the subject (302 in the past week alone!). That is more than half of all the pieces on the subject written before Election Day 2008, which totaled 1,051. Major broadcast outlets from MSNBC to National Public Radio have devoted hours of coverage to the subject in the past week....

Why, then, all the attention now? I've seen the footage of the congressman asked about the birth certificate during a town hall meeting. I've seen the footage of the other conservative representatives asked about it on the Hill. But I don't think that justifies the outsized coverage of late.

Consider that health care reform, what is likely the signature piece of legislation of Barack Obama's presidency, is on the rocks. Secondly, we just had one of the most significant debates about race in American life in some time. Then there are those wars, the economy, spending bills, matters like that.

Kuhn plays it a little coy, but he basically has it right. Media Matters, Think Progress, and a host of left-wing blogs all became obsessed with the Birther theory and movement in the past month, as opposition mounted to Obama's health care plans. What better than to distract attention.

But it is backfiring. It's like telling people not to think about something, which virtually guarantees they will think about it.

So it is not surprising that a DailyKOS poll reveals that 23% of Americans either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.A. or are not sure. The percentages are highest among Republicans and in the South. Considering how hard the left-wing blogs have been harping on the issue (and the tendency of many people only to read headlines), it is not surprising that the perception, or at least uncertainty, as to Obama's citizenship is growing.

Nonetheless, the percentage of people who believe Obama is not a citizen still is lower than the percentage of people who believed that George Bush "stole" the 2000 election. The Gallup Poll revealed that as of Bush's inauguration in 2001, 24% of people thought Bush stole the election against Al Gore, while an additional 31% felt Bush won "on a technicality." This perception persisted even after a newspaper consortium re-count found that Bush would have won using the type of re-count demanded by Gore.

Other Democratic inspired conspiracy theories included that Bush stole the 2004 election (completely debunked here), that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's son, that Bush "lied us into war," and most recently, that Bush concealed the Arctic ice shelf.

Democrats used the conspiracy theory as political tool effectively against Bush. And clearly the Democrats love the Obama-is-not-a-citizen conspiracy theory because of the political value. But having raised the theory into the media and political mainstream, there is no turning back.

Much like "Bush lied us into war" and "Bush stole the election," it is too late to unring the bell on the public consiousness as to Obama's citizenship, regardless of the truth.

UPDATE: David Kuhn cites a spring 2007 Rasmussan poll as showing how effective Democratic "truther" attacks on Bush were among Democrats:

That poll found that only 39 percent of Democrats believed W. Bush did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while 26 percent said they were unsure and slightly more than one third of Democrats believed W. Bush knew his country was going to be attacked.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
The Big Smear
Swift Birthers
Psst...Don't Tell Andrew Sullivan Our Secret
"Palin Lied, People Died" And Other Media Fictions
Bush Hid Ice Images From People Who Can't Use Google

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

One of the joys of blogging under your real name is getting e-mails like this:

Mr. Jacobson,

You wrote: "While the mainstream media and left-wing blogs constantly tell us that Republicans and conservatives are dead politically, I don't think they actually believe what they are saying."

Actually, some of us remember 1993-94. We assumed you were "dead" then too. We learned a lesson there. Respond. And respond quickly, no matter how absurd or seemingly petty the attacks from conservatives.

This time, Mr. Jacobson, we know you're down and we're going to keep you there. We intend to step on your throat.

That's why you're seeing this reaction. You can't get away with your garbage any longer.

Get used to it.

Let this be a lesson. While we appear to be on the cusp of avoiding a health care "reform" disaster, and maybe even averting the cap-and-tax fiasco, a small victory here and there will not be the end so long as the people pushing this agenda remain in control of Congress.

The mid-term elections are only 15 months away. Evening out the balance of power in Congress is the best way to keep the throat-stampers away from the door.



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The meeting at the White House yesterday between Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and James Crowley (with Joe Biden as the fourth wheel) has been dubbed the "Beer Summit." Perhaps a better name would be the Thanksgiving Summit (emphasis mine):

• Pres. Obama: "I am thankful to Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley for joining me at the White House this evening for a friendly, thoughtful conversation...."
• Prof. Gates: Let me say that I thank God that I live in a country in which police officers put their lives at risk to protect us every day .... I’m also grateful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is a sacrosanct value.... Thank God we live in a country where speech is protected ..... And thank God that we have a President who can rise above the fray .... President Obama is a man who understands tolerance and forgiveness, and our country is blessed to have such a leader.
• Sgt. Crowley: "First I'd like to thank the police officers from Cambridge.... Thank you."

The rest of us? We're thankful it's almost over.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Gates-gate Poetry Slam
The "Olive Colored" Skin Defense

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Freddie Med. Never has a phrase better summed up the danger of Democratic plans to have the federal government run the health care system.

What Freddie Mac did for mortgages, Freddie Med will do for health care: A politicized system in which political correctness and social engineering takes precedence over fiscal and individual responsibility, tainted by cronyism, sweetheart deals, and political insider corruption.

Freddie Med. I wish I had thought of that phrase, but I have to give credit to commenter MarySue of Ruby Slippers, a brand new blog. (The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial using "Fannie Med" but MarySue beat them to the punch by at least a day; per Mary Sue's comment below apparently Allahpundit was the first to use it, figures. Whoever used it first, it's great.)

Freddie Med. Coming to a doctor's office near you, if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have their way.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Blogger and media professor Jeff Cohen argues at HuffPo that the reason Obama's health care plans are failing is that the liberal netroots are not pushing hard enough for a full-blown, nationalized, "single-payer," "one nation, one plan" style medical system:

Activists must recognize the surest way to get a strong public option that could compete with the Cadillac of health plans. We needed to mobilize millions of Netroots people, almost every union and 150 members of Congress to endorse a maximum demand: National health insurance . . . enhanced Medicare for All. In other words, a cost-effective single-payer system of publicly-financed, privately-delivered healthcare that ends private health insurance (and its waste, bureaucracy, ads, sales commissions, lavish executive salaries, profiteering).

Had liberal groups sent out millions of emails building a movement that posed an existential threat to the health insurance industry, Sen. Baucus and Blue Dog Democrats and their corporate healthcare patrons might well be on their knees begging for a comprehensive public option -- to avert the threat of full-blown Medicare for All.

Cohen goes on to compare the health care debate with the efforts to end slavery, the Vietnam War, and segregation. Demand everything you want, even if it is more than you are willing to take in compromise.

The historical analogies are faulty, as is the negotiating strategy. Demanding too much will result in failure, but who cares at this point. I certainly do not want to get in the way of this strategy.

The Democrats should demand single-payer health care with a loud and clear voice. If they do, Cohen's prophecy of doom for the Democratic Party is sure to come true, although because of not in spite of, his advice:

And if Obama does fail, we can quit laughing at a Republican Party in disarray due to Bush, religious extremism, hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism.

Because in this period of crisis and fear, unless a progressively-prodded White House delivers reforms that actually improve lives soon, right wing reaction could rebound more dangerous than ever in 2010 and/or 2012.

Please go there. We can't do it without you.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

A Democratic pollster is quoted as saying that “this is a president who needs a vacation.” Obama is making a big push on everything all the time, but the polls are moving against him.

If Obama were an endurance cyclist, we'd say he was bonking or hitting the wall. Anyone who has done an endurance sport (sorry, hoops is not an endurance sport) knows the feeling. The glycogen is depleted, the electrolytes are gone, the effort just isn't moving you forward very fast. At a certain point, no matter how hard you work, you seem to move backwards. When you started the race, you hoped for a personal best; now all you want to do is finish to avoid the humiliation of failure.

And so it is for this President. Obama's plan to restructure the health care system is the big race. Obama started with hopes of a personal best, a remaking of America in the image he imagined, but now all he wants to do is finish. Obama only now is realizing that he depleted his political glycogen on the failed stimulus bill.

Obama may make it to the finish line, but at a price. Some Congressmen and Senators will be bought off with pork, some others with promises of campaign help, and others will capitulate after a conversation with Rahmbo.

But the Obama who swayed crowds with promises of hope is gone, diminished with each vote gained through legal bribery and bullying. Obama can finish, but only at the loss of credibility and stature. At this point in the race, there is nothing Obama can do to change this reality.

Obama should rest, but he can't. The patience of the American people is running out, so there is not much time left on the clock. And therein lies the paradox of the Obama presidency.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Blue Dogs In The Midday Sun
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Will Newsweek ever stop trying to get attention by declaring things coming to an end?

First it was the end of Christian America. Then the end of the recession. Now the end of monogamy as the basis for socially acceptable relationships, in a lead article captioned:

Only You. And You. And You.

Polyamory—relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners—has a coming-out party.

The article is sure to re-ignite the slippery slope argument over gay marriage, that legalizing and institutionalizing gay marriage inevitably will lead to the requirement of similar treatment for polygamous polyamorous groups of people. One counter is as follows:

But doesn't this start us down the slippery slope to hell? No. Consider first the case of polygamy. People are capable and some desire lives intertwined with more than one person. Couldn't three people make decisions as a unit and wouldn't this argument require affording the legal status to all of them? No. The purpose of civil marriage is to make sure that the location of rights and responsibilities is perfectly clear. Polygamy would not only not make these issues unambiguous, it would entrench further ambiguity into the law. It would do the opposite of what civil marriage is meant to do.

And a counter to this counter is:

Dismiss it, if you must. Be offended, if you choose. Send hate mail, if you’re inclined. But allowing two people of the same sex to declare themselves “married” renders the whole institution meaningless and opens the door to legally recognizing other “inimical” relationships. Perhaps 10 years from now, those cases will make headlines.

Say what you will, slippery slope arguments often work in the legal context:

But it seems to me that decisions such as the California, Massachusetts, and Vermont ones illustrate that it's a mistake to just factually dismiss the claims that slippage is possible. When we're dealing with a legal system that's built on analogy and precedent (both binding precedent and persuasive precedent), slippery slope risks have to be taken seriously.

Newsweek knows how to get attention, and sex and sexuality sells. Newsweek, however, does not know how to break out of the doctors-office-magazine-rack hell it is stuck in.

How about this for the next Newsweek cover: "The end of the world is near!" That ought to generate a few hits, but probably not any paying subscribers.

UPDATE: For other views, Defend Marriage as an Institution to Avoid Slippery Slopes and Homosexual equality has nothing to do with slippery slopes

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

"Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun," so said Noel Coward.*

So must it seem to Barack Obama and the leading Democrats who are trying to force through a vote on health care "reform" without anyone having a fair opportunity to read the bill, much less debate the provisions that will change our lives for generations. But instead of mad dogs, it is Blue Dogs, those rascally centrist Democrats who are insisting that any final floor vote in the House be delayed until September so that they can consult with their constituents.

What madness it must seem to Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and the others pushing hard for a vote this week, for Democrats to go out into the light of public opinion. Sheer lunacy to allow people to understand the legislation, to debate it, and to lobby their representatives during the political heat of August.

Those Blue Dogs are mad, I tell you, utterly mad.



*I know, those who rely on memory not history probably think the line was written by Joe Cocker. [A similar but not identical phrase is attributed to Kipling, from Kim: "we walk as though we were mad - or English."]

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Health Care By Fiat
Unaccountable Commission May Run Healthcare
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

You know the Democrats are sensing a loss of momentum, and increasing resistance to their plans to ram through changes the American people do not want, because they have brought out the big smear that opposition to Barack Obama is racist.

The most pathetic is TPM, in its post Obama-Haters Becoming Increasingly...Racial In Their Rhetoric which uses a small number of questionable anecdotes to smear all opposition to Obama's policies and plans. For example, TPM claims that the focus on Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the campaign was a reflection of white racism. Yes, once again criticising Jeremiah Wright's anti-white rhetoric is used to smear critics as being anti-black. Needless to say, other pro-Obama blogs and usual suspects are picking up on the charge as well.

This is typical of the use of "Race" As Political Weapon during the campaign. It is pathetic, transparent, and ultimately counter-productive.

The American people are seeing through the ridiculous media bubble and false promises which resulted in Obama's election and a Democratic sweep of Congress. This awakening has nothing to do with race, as Nancy Pelosi's unpopularity far exceeds that of Obama.

The use of the race card -- while it may be effective at times -- is not going to change the political dynamic this time. We've been there, done that.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Gary Margolis, Executive Director of College Mental Health Services and Associate Professor in the English Department at Middlebury College in Vermont was moved to pen a poem in support of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The poem was titled "Ajar" and was published at the Boston Globe's website. Here is a portion:

The police want us to think it’s all
water under the bridge. I have to say
I’m sorry. For them. Someone has to

pay his respects. I expect we haven’t
heard the last of this. A poem needs
its refrain. White-haired Frost doesn’t

leave a key under his mat for me
when I come home late, when I’ve
forgotten which window I’ve left unlocked.

In response to this ode-to-Gates, commenter "Marcus" penned the following:

A Liar

Who hasn’t screamed at a cop
followed him onto a front porch
even spit an insult about his mama

just because you knew you could?
Gates did at his Harvard house.
I’m telling you I’m through

with people who have friends in high places.
Look around. No one’s around to call
the press who rarely write about me.

The elites built a wall around
Cambridge. hey live there, too. And now
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is one of them,

all superior to some redneck cop. Mr. Gates
isn’t innocent and profiled. He made
his own mess. Crowley didn’t have

a president to call. Just a stupid cop, acting stupidly.
then Oops; sorry, remark clarified. Never mind.
Water under a bridge.

The elites want us to think it’s all
water under the bridge. They will never say
they’re sorry. Celebrity privilege. And someone has

to be the privileged one. I expect we haven’t
heard the last of this. A talking point needs
its talkers. Mighty, mighty Harvard won’t

leave a jail key for me when I
get busted, when I’ve forgotten
which window I’ve left unlocked.

I think Marcus could have been more succinct, as in "ouch."

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Gates 911 Caller Believes Police Acted Appropriately
The "Olive Colored" Skin Defense
Race and Class In Harvard Square

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

I have not devoted much attention to the Barack Obama "Birth Certificate" conspiracy theories, because I have been bogged down debunking so many other conspiracy theories, like Andrew Sullivan's Trig Palin birth conspiracy theory and the recent theory that the Bush administration "concealed" evidence as to ice measurements off the coast of Barrow, Alaska. There are only so many conspiracy theories I can handle in any given week.

I have made the point, time and again, that one of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory (as opposed to a true conspiracy) is that the lack of evidence is used as evidence that the conspiracy was really, really good. It is like the claim that your watch does not run on a battery or mechanism; there is a secret Genie inside who is very shy, and turns into a battery or mechanism when the watch is opened. There is no way to disprove the theory, which is the pesky problem with rebutting conspiracy theories.

So the fact that not a single doctor, nurse, hospital staff member, or other person has come forward with evidence that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig must mean that the conspiracy was really, really good, encompassing hundreds if not thousands of people, every single one of whom has kept their mouth shut. This has not prevented The Atlantic from providing a platform for Andrew Sullivan to make a fool of himself on the issue, and to give voice to the cottage industry of Trig Palin birthers on the internet.

And on the ice measurement nonsense, the fact that previously classified spy satellite images were released does not mean that anything was concealed, since ice measurements were taken for decades by scientists using personal observation, airplane flyovers, civilian satellites, and many other means, much of which is available on Google. And the Bush administration actually asserted that there was a decrease in the ice shelf off of Alaska, so one would have to believe that the Bush administration concealed evidence supporting its position. But this has not stopped prominent left-wing blogs, such as Think Progress, from touting the declassified photos as evidence of a Bush administration conspiracy.

Which gets me to the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory, to wit, the claim that Obama was not born in the U.S.A., despite the official Hawaiian record of his "live birth" and contemporaneous newspaper announcements. It is this latter evidence that seals the deal for me. Much like the craziness regarding Trig Palin and the ice measurements, to accept that 48 years ago someone had the foresight to plant newspaper stories in anticipation of Barack Hussein Obama becoming president half a century later just isn't credible. As Obama himself has proclaimed, would anyone who wanted him to become President have given him that middle name? If they were so smart as to plant stories in the newspaper, why not give him a name like William Jefferson Obama or George Herbert Walker Obama.

I agree with the editorial at National Review Online:

Pres. Barack Obama has a birthday coming up, a week from Tuesday. We hope he takes the day off—or even the whole week, the briefest of respites from his busy schedule of truncating our liberties while exhausting both the public coffers and our patience....

One of the unfortunate consequences of this red-herring discussion is that there are plenty of questions about Obama’s background and history that we would like to have answered. In spite of two books of memoirs, there remain murky areas in his biography. And when it comes to those college transcripts, count us among those who’d love to know whether Dr. Bailout ever took an advanced economics class and how he performed in it.

Barack Obama may prefer European-style socialized health care. He may consider himself a citizen of the Earth and sometimes address his audiences as “people of the world,” as though he were born not in another country but on another planet. Like Bruce Springsteen, he has a lot of bad political ideas; but he was born in the U.S.A.

Who are the primary beneficiaries of the conspiracy theory? Not the people pushing it; they remain on the fringe. Not the Republican party.

No, the primary beneficiary of the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory is Obama. He is running the country into the ground at break-neck speed, but the conspiracy theory has handed Democratic operatives like Media Matters, Think Progress, and all the left-wing blogs which jump when the whistle blows, a great way of distracting the public from the damage being done.

Don't believe me, just look at the Memeorandum screen shot above right. The left-wing blogosphere moves in a group, and the group is pushing the same point: Beware the Birthers. The Birthers are not a threat to the economy, our national security, personal freedom, or our health care system -- except to the extent they hand the Democrats a side issue with which to deflect attention from the real issues facing the country.

So stop looking for the birth certificate, and start reading the health-care-reduction bill, the cap-and-tax fiasco bill, the unemployment numbers, the national debt and deficit analyses, and the latest Obama speech apologizing for who we are. And contact your Congressman and Senator and demand they read legislation, and give the public opportunity for comment, before they vote on it.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has a post at HotAir making a similar point, posted just around the time I posted this. Great minds think alike, or a conspiracy of monumental proportions?

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Psst...Don't Tell Andrew Sullivan Our Secret
"Palin Lied, People Died" And Other Media Fictions
Bush Hid Ice Images From People Who Can't Use Google

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

[Not sure why, but the video embed is not working, so here is the link]



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Wendy Murphy, the lawyer for Lucia Whalen, who placed the 911 call which led to the arrest of Henry Louis Gate, Jr., was interviewed tonight on the Greta Van Susteren show. Murphy, speaking for Whalen, stated that Whalen heard Gates screaming at police, but refused to go any further into the details of what Whalen saw and heard. Murphy stated that Whalen wants to put this behind her in light of the accusations of racism made against her after her 911 call.

Significantly, however, Murphy was asked whether Whalen saw or heard Gates acting in such a way as to justify an arrest for disorderly conduct. Murphy stated:

"I think what's fair to say is that she [Whalen] does not believe the police acted inappropriately. Without describing the content of what she heard, there's only one person she heard screaming, and that was Professor Gates." [View the video below beginning at 1:45 in descending time]

While Whalen may not be in a position to make a legal judgment as to whether the arrest was warranted, it is significant that Whalen -- being an eyewitness to Gates' conduct -- believed the police acted appropriately in making the arrest.

The picture of a screaming Gates sufficiently out of control to warrant an arrest -- at least in the view of an eyewitness -- is consistent not only with the description by Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, but also Sgt. Patrolman Carlos Figueroa, who signed an Incident Supplemental accompanying Crowley's report.



--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
The "Olive Colored" Skin Defense
We Need The Truth, Not Beer and Apologies
Race and Class In Harvard Square
Another Stupid Police Story

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The Cambridge Police have released the 911 call by Lucia Whalen about a possible break-in at the home of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Here is the complete audio.



The interesting part of the call is the caller, Lucia Whalen, is very circumscribed in what she says. She says only that she saw two men, one of whom might have been Hispanic (in response to the 911 operator's question) pushing open the door to the house, and that she wasn't sure if they were breaking in, or lived there and merely having trouble with the door. She mentioned that they were still in the house. Whalen mentioned that an older woman had interrupted Whalen out of concern that someone was breaking in: "I was just calling because she was a concerned neighbor, I guess."

Listening to the tape, it is clear that the attacks on Whalen, including many in the blogosphere who called her racist for having engaged in racial profiling, were way off base. Whalen should be commended for getting involved when stopped by one of the elderly neighbors who thought there might be a break-in in progress, and for reporting what she saw -- and what she didn't see -- accurately and without hyperbole.

UPDATE: The tape of the dispatch also has been released, calling for a car to respond to a possible "B&E in progress". It does not appear that the cautious words used in Whalen's 911 call were conveyed to the officers, only that there was a possible B&E in progress, and there is mention (presumably by Crowley) that one of the individuals "says he resides here" but is "uncooperative" and he requests to "keep the cars coming."

[Note: I have substituted the video below for the one previously in this post because it contains more audio of when Crowley was on the scene, including some faint background of Gates talking - h/t to Patterico, who has some transcription.]


--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The big, breaking news of the day on the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. case is that the person who called the police to report a possible break-in, Lucia Whalen, denies that in the phone call she identified the race of the two alleged perpetrators, which supposedly contradicts the police report:

The woman, identified in a police report on file in Cambridge District Court as 40-year-old Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.

In an interview last night, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas said it was ac curate that Whalen did not mention race in her 911 call. He acknowledged that a police report of the incident did include a race reference. The report says Whalen observed “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the front porch’’ of a Ware Street home on July 16.

That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

Actually, this news is not big, although it is breaking. The Police Commissioner is correct. The police report does not say that the race of the alleged perpetrators was identified in the 911 call. It says that Whalen identified their race when she met the police outside the house. So this breaking news story is based on a misreading of the police report.

But what is more interesting is that in the statement released by Whalen's attorney, Whalen emphasized that Whalen has "olive colored" skin:

"Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed 'two men' at the home," Murphy's statement read.

Is this what we have come to? Measuring skin tone as an indicator of intent? So if Whalen were black, no racial profiling; if white, racial profiling; but olive colored people?

Whalen's reaction is not surprising. Whalen has been pilloried by the blogosphere as being a white racist neighbor (actually passer-by) who only called the police because she didn't feel that two black men on the porch of a nice house could be up to anything but no good. So it is natural, but unfortunate, that Whalen falls into the trap of playing the skin-tone game.

But the skin-tone game is a dead end. Whalen will find that out soon enough.

UPDATE: The 911 Tapes has been released. It is clear that Whalen was not acting out of racial animous, but called the police after being stopped by an elderly woman who was afraid there was a break in in progress: Gates 911 Tape Released. In light of her clearly reasonable and race-neutral call to 911, it is hard to understand why Whalen felt the need to issue a statement mentioning her "olive colored" skin.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
We Need The Truth, Not Beer and Apologies
Race and Class In Harvard Square

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The global warming debate has entered the conspiracy-theory phase with this hysterical article at The Guardian: Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide.

Contrary to what the global-warming alarmists claim, however, there is scientific dispute over ice measurements.

What is not lacking, however, is satellite imagery. You see, U.S. spy satellites are not the only imaging satellites, and while spy satellites may be better at picking up a license plate number from a moving car, plenty of satellites can measure ice caps. But don't take my word for it, just do a Google search (click image right).

So how about this headline: "Bush Hid Ice Images From People Who Can't Use Google."

Added: You don't need a spy satellite to see the hypocrisy on the roof of "go green" expert Thomas L. Friedman's mansion:

UPDATE 7-27-2009: Now Think Progress has joined the propoganda effort, Obama administration reveals evidence of global warming kept secret under Bush. Not only is the spin completely absurd and contradicted by publicly available information which shows widespread ice measurements (see comments below), as Macsmind points out, the released photos only compare ice levels in 2006 (a record level of ice) with 2007, even though up to 10 years of photos were taken.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The proper ending to the controversy over the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should not be an apology or a sit down for beer at the White House. This no longer is a private affair, so Prof. Gates' desire to "move on," while understandable, is irrelevant.

The public is entitled to the evidence so that we can determine whether Sgt. James Crowley was a rogue, racial-profiling cop as Gates claimed, or whether Prof. Gates made false accusations of racial profiling.

While differing perceptions clearly contributed to the reactions of Prof. Gate and Sgt. Crowley, perception cannot change the truth of what actually happened. The best evidence as to the truth will be the recordings of the 911 call which precipitated the police going to Prof. Gates' house, Sgt. Crowley's radio calls once on the scene, and the accounts of eyewitnesses, including neighbors, passers-by, and the two other policemen on the scene.

We need to get to the truth of what happened in order to learn from this incident. If Prof. Gates is revealed to have made accusations without justification, then that will be a teaching moment for sure in the context of discussing racial profiling.

"Driving while black" racial profiling certainly takes place. But less discussed is the related phenomenon of "policing while white," in which white police officers sometimes falsely are accused of racial profiling, either because they have been falsely profiled as inherently racist, or because accusations of racism are an effective defense tool. If we are to understand and condemn racial profiling, we should understand and condemn false accusations of racial profiling.

Exposing this incident as "policing while white" will be an important part of the conversation, if indeed the evidence supports such a conclusion. Alternatively, if this really was a case of racial profiling, we need to know that as well and to use that knowledge in implementing effective changes.

What we do not need is a whitewash or a refusal to reach a conclusion as to who was right and who was wrong.

I have nothing against Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley sitting down for some beer with Barack Obama at the White House. But while a "let's all just get along" moment may be necessary, it is not sufficient. Let's all just get along after we know who was right and who was wrong.

An apology from Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley or Obama also may be necessary if insufficient, but first we need to know who should be apologizing. Faux expressions of regret will simply perpetuate misconceptions of what happened, and deepen not lessen the hard feelings.

I know that Obama does not like to use the word "victory." But the public needs a victory of truth here. Based upon what I have read, I do not believe that this was a case of racial profiling. But if the truth is that there really was racial profiling going on, then Sgt. Crowley needs to handle the truth, as do I.

But if the truth is that Prof. Gates made a false accusation of racial profiling, and Obama accepted that false accusation without due inquiry because of Obama's own profiling of the police, then Prof. Gates and Obama need to handle that truth, if they can.

We need a winner and a loser, based on the evidence of what actually happened. No one truly can move on, and we can't just all get along, until then.
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Race and Class In Harvard Square
Another Stupid Police Story
Everyone Yells At The Stupid Police

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The Congressional Budget Office once again has poked a massive hole in the Democratic health care "reform" bubble, in a report issued today.

One of the key elements of the Democratic proposals is to hand over the power to make cost cuts to an unelected, unimpeachable council similar to MedPAC. By empowering such an insular entity to make decisions over which health care procedures and medicines are cost-effective, we will have surrendered enormous freedom over personal health care. If a procedure or medication is not approved by this entity, it will not be economically viable for the provider to bring it to market, so it will not be available even if you were willing to pay out of pocket.

Putting aside our freedom, the CBO has come out with an analysis (appearing in full below) which shows that handing over health care decisions to an entity such as MedPAC will not save any substantial sums over the next decade, even as the cost of health care "reform" escalates. As related at The Politico:

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

What a pathetic joke the Democratic legislative effort has become. Loss of freedom and no meaningful cost savings. The opposite of "you get what you pay for."

As Rahm Emanuel and Henry Waxman push to have a vote next week, it is clear that neither the Congress nor the White House has any clue as to the consequences of what they are proposing (if they even have read it). All the more reason we need to see the bill, debate it, and let our representatives know how we feel before they vote.

So give double thanks this weekend. First, for the CBO not giving in to political pressure. And second, for the fact that the CBO works on Saturdays.

UPDATE: Read 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform:

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

CBO 07-25-IMAC

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Unaccountable Commission May Run Healthcare
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The French army finally has won a war. It managed to burn down a suburb of Marseille during artillary pracice without suffering any casualties among its troops:

MILITARY bombing practice has caused one of France's worst fires for three years which continues to rage on the eastern outskirts of Marseille.

The fire has burnt dozens of homes but claimed no victims.

The wildfire was caused by military practice shelling which hit the eastern Trois-Ponts suburb of the southern city forcing the evacuation of scores of residents....

A thick black smoke swirled around the district and many residents angrily criticised the French army which had staged artillery training at its Carpiagne camp just before the fire started.

Regional prefect Michel Sappin confirmed that the blaze had been started by the shelling, lashing out at the "imbecilic" action that had led to "an annoying and serious" situation in a zone close to a city and saying he was "exasperated".

Thanks to Tim Blair for calling this to my attention. I particularly like this comment at his blog post:

It would be delicious if Israel loudly condemned the French Government for accidentally bombing civilian homes and moved a string of motions against them in the UN.

Although I think the following comment was a bit snarky:

How dare the French military set fire to the suburbs! Don’t they know that’s the job of the “youths”?

May there always be a France.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Jewish History In One Sentence
Blagojevich's Allusion To Churchill Was Not His Finest Hour
Margaret Thatcher: Free Society Speech (1975)

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Leave it to The NY Times to create a faux historical context to absolve Barack Obama of criticism over Obama's statement that the Cambridge Police acted "stupidly" with regard to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

What faux historical context, you ask? The Times compares Obama's comments to comments made by John F. Kennedy on the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., Richard Nixon on the Charles Manson murder trial, Ronald Reagan on Iran-Contra congressional hearings, and Bill Clinton on the Unabomber arrest:

President Obama may have created a media frenzy over his comment on Wednesday that the Cambridge police department acted “stupidly” in the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard scholar, and his retreat from that comment on Friday. But he is certainly not the first president to have weighed in on a celebrated case.

While such comments are rare, some previous presidents have also commented on big cases of their day, even as court trials were under way....

All of those cases had received far more publicity by the time those presidents spoke than the matter involving Mr. Gates had received by the time Mr. Obama made his remarks. Those presidents all weathered the political storms that ensued, and some may even have been politically advantaged by them.

“At the end of the day, these are robust human beings who occupy the Oval Office, and they are skilled with robust language,” said Ted Widmer, a presidential
historian at Brown.

What a stretch. None of those presidents blamed the police or rushed to judgment while acknowledging ignorance of the facts.

JFK called Corretta Scott King to comfort her; no comparison. Nixon's comment on Manson's guilt was notable only because Manson held up the newspaper in front front of the jury in a failed bid for a mistrial; no comparison. Reagan expressed his belief in Oliver North's innocence, but didn't attack law enforcement; no comparison. And Clinton merely expressed his hope that there would be no plea bargain given how many people Ted Kozinski killed; no comparison.

Obama correctly is backtracking on his comment, and acknowledging that he contributed to the controversy. Perhaps it is time for The Times to stop trying so hard to excuse what Obama himself acknowledges was an inappropriate statement.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Race and Class In Harvard Square
Et Tu, Lynn Sweet?
Another Stupid Police Story

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

This video, courtesy of The Right Wing Czar, is too funny. Somehow, I recall Obama channeling Seinfeld once before.



--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
Obama Channels Seinfeld

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

I hope the Cambridge Police Department releases the 911 call which reported a burglary in progress at the home of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gate, Jr., and the subsequent radio calls from Sgt. James Crowley. Add to that, all witness accounts, including by the two other officers on the scene, and neighbors who heard and/or saw some of the events.

Based upon the police report already released, the statement issued by Gates' attorney, and various interviews with Gates and Crowley, I strongly suspect that this confrontation will be revealed not to be about race, but about class. A supremely educated Harvard Professor versus an educated but non-academic police sergeant.

This class divide is evident in the blogosphere, including a Huffington Post blogger's observation (italics mine):

I believe Gates did what anyone would do, he yelled at the officer, probably called him a few names and maybe told him he was not too smart. Out of wounded pride, I believe the officer decided to arrest the scholar.

Ah, the proud but dumb cop, reacting to a put down from the Cambridge elite. There may be some truth to that, without the "not too smart" part. We see this class divide in Barack Obama's gratuitous use of the word "stupidly" when describing the conduct of the Cambridge police.

And of course, this class divide permeates our politics, in which academic credentials are used as the measure of intelligence. To quote Yuval Levin's wonderful piece about Sarah Palin:

Applied to politics, the worldview of the intellectual elite begins from an unstated assumption that governing is fundamentally an exercise of the mind: an application of the proper mix of theory, expertise, and intellectual distance that calls for knowledge and verbal fluency more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.

The differing perceptions of the events are reflected in this class divide. Professor Gates, having devoted his life to studying the effects of race in America, saw the police approach as a reflection of what he had studied (but in his own words not experienced before) about how the police treat black men. Sgt. Crowley saw the approach to the doorway the way any cop views entry onto a potential burglary in progress.

A simple request to step outside is viewed by Professor Gates as an affront to his dignity and the fulfillment of academic theories. The same request likely was viewed by Sgt. Crowley as a cautious step so as not to be caught alone inside a house possibly occupied not only by Professor Gates but also by a second unaccounted-for person (what did happen to the taxi driver?).

While there may be aspects of the case which reflect a "national Rohrsach test on race," this may be more of a national Rohrsach test on class. A member of Cambridge's intellectual elite viewing the scene from the perch of academic smarts, and a police sergeant viewing the same events from the perch of street smarts. A real class divide hidden behind the rhetoric of race.

This incident, and a full exploration of what happened and why, really could be a teaching moment.

What others are saying:
► A Teaching Moment
►The Officer Didn’t Stereotype Henry Louis Gates — Henry Louis Gates Stereotyped the Officer
►The Gates Rohrsach
►Skip Gates, please sit down

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Et Tu, Lynn Sweet?
Bill Buckley Saw The "Stupid Police" Thing Coming


Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Lynn Sweet is from Chicago, where Barack Obama launched and refined his community activist/politician credentials. Sweet writes and blogs for the Chicago Sun-Times, and is one of my favorite columnists/bloggers.

When Sweet asked the now-famous question to Barack Obama last night about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., it seemed so out of place. The point of the news conference was health care. Surely, Obama must have expected a sympathetic question from a hometown friend, something along the lines of, "how many children will be saved by your health care proposal?"

But Sweet knew what she was doing. After 45 minutes of Obama's droll droning on about health insurance reform, during which time the reporters barely could stay awake, Sweet waved a red flag in front of a clearly frustrated Obama:

Thank you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

While many people have faulted Obama for opining on a subject about which he didn't know the facts, the way the question was posed made a non-answer almost impossible. The question was not about Gates, but about race relations, something about which Obama frequently spoke during the campaign. While Obama could and should have deferred as to the propriety of the Gates arrest, Obama could not resist speaking about race relations, and thus began his downfall. A news conference about health care became a news conference about race, probably the last thing Obama wanted.

The rest, as they say, is history.



UPDATE 7-27-2009: Incredibly, Obama made his statement even though he had been prepped to give an answer about the Gates situation, so while Sweet may have boxed him in with the wording of the question, there was no surprise on the topic.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Bill Buckley Saw The "Stupid Police" Thing Coming
Another Stupid Police Story

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

William F. Buckley, Jr. famously said:

I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

Reflecting on the controversy surrounding the conduct and arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., I propose an amendment to Buckley's statement:

I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory [Cambridge Police] than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Another Stupid Police Story
Everyone Yells At The Stupid Police
No, It Wasn't Racial Profiling

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

I guess I owe something of an apology to Huffington Post blogger Martha St. Jean who wrote yesterday about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.:

I believe Gates did what anyone would do, he yelled at the officer, probably called him a few names and maybe told him he was not too smart.

I responded, in my post Everyone Yells At The Stupid Police, that "maybe in the world of Huffington Post bloggers everyone yells at the police, calls them names, and tells them they are stupid... and expects no reaction."

I was wrong. I should not have restricted my commentary to the world of Huffington Post bloggers. Barack Obama is not a Huffington Post blogger, but Obama also asserted that the Cambridge police acted stupidly even though Obama acknowledged that he was not familiar with the facts of Gates' conduct which led to the arrest:

"I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that he Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home. He was arrested after police reacted -- maybe overreacted -- to Gates' verbal assault on the police. Obama's statement did not leave open the possibility that Gates caused the problem not by being in his home, but by overreacting to police officers investigating a complaint of a burglary in progress.

The Cambridge police officer defends his conduct, and will not give the apology Gates demanded:

"There are not many certainties in life, but it is for certain that Sgt. Crowley will not be apologizing," Sgt. James Crowley told NewsCenter 5....

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Cambridge police superior officers came to Crowley's defense after Gates accused the officer of lying and fabricating a police report that detailed Gates' arrest on disorderly conduct charges. The report described the incident as a tumultuous and frightening confrontation with police.

The Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association said it reviewed the arrest and
expressed its "full and unqualified support for the actions taken by Sgt. Crowley."

I stand by my other comment in response to Ms. St. Jean's post: "I think Ms. St. Jean has confused just who is 'not too smart.'"

Added: Take a look a Jules Crittenden's post Sensitivity Training Now -- this supposedly racist cop was the person who gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in an unsuccessful attempt to revive basketball player Reggie Lewis.

And: Dan Riehl has the video clip of Obama's "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak" comment as to a different controversy.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

"Keep your laws off my body" has been a rallying cry of liberals, and the pro-choice movement in particular, for decades. The concept is that medical procedures are so intensely personal that government, regardless of its intent, should not be involved in the decisions.

Yet when it comes to the Democrats' health care plans, liberal supporters of keeping the law off their bodies now are saying, "put your laws all over my body."

Government will make medical decisions not only as to the womb, but every other body part; and not just that, government policies as to which procedures and medicines are cost-effective will decide life and death.

Are you able to think beyond today? Do you really want the government all over your body just because you like the current President and Congress? Then be prepared to live with the consequences when you have a President and Congress you don't like.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Obama Was Against Compulsory Health Insurance, Before He Was For It
Unaccountable Commission May Run Healthcare

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

"The time for talk is over." That sentence should be the new slogan of the Obama administration. Forget "Change We Can Believe In" or "Yes We Can." Those were yesterday's slogans, when Obama wanted but did not yet have power.

The time for talk was over when it came to the stimulus plan debate:

"The time for talk is over," [Obama] added. "The time for action is now, because we know that if we do not act, a bad situation will become dramatically worse. Crisis could turn into catastrophe for families and businesses across the country."

We know how the stimulus debate went. Not a single Congressman read the bill before voting on it, the package was loaded with pork and pet projects which did not create jobs, and it has been a massive, massive failure.

Cutting off talk worked so well with the stimulus plan, that Obama has invoked this rule with regard to the pending health care bill. The impact of restructuring the health care system will dwarf the effect on the nation of the stimulus plan and will affect patients for generations, but still there is no time for talk. "The time for talk is through" Obama told a group of far-left bloggers.

When Obama says the time for talk is over, what he means is that the American people do not get to understand massive legislation which will change their lives forever, do not get to express their opinions to their representatives, and do not get real representation since their representatives do not even understand the legislation before voting. Fear of the American people is what motivates the push to cut off debate.

And the time for talk being over doesn't apply to Obama. Tune into Obama's primetime, nationally-televised press conference tonight, but like good children, be seen but not heard.

----------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Obama Wins The Crooks and Liars Vote
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform
Stimulus -- Just $99.99 While Supplies Last

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

On the controversy regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Martha St. Jean at Huffington Post writes:

I believe Gates did what anyone would do, he yelled at the officer, probably called him a few names and maybe told him he was not too smart. Out of wounded pride, I believe the officer decided to arrest the scholar.

Maybe in the world of Huffington Post bloggers everyone yells at the police, calls them names, and tells them they are stupid... and expects no reaction. I think Ms. St. Jean has confused just who is "not too smart."

--------------------------------------------
Related Post: No, It Wasn't Racial Profiling

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

The current Democratic House bill on health care includes fines to force people to purchase health insurance, which is consistent with Barack Obama's current position on mandates. This type of coercion, however, was criticized by Obama during the campaign, when he attacked Hillary Clinton's health insurance plan because Hillary's plan mandated universal coverage through fines and other mechanisms which forced people to buy coverage:

"The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine, is because of a mandate. It is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care. And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care ...."

Watch the whole video for Obama's impassioned criticisms of plans which mandate that people purchase health insurance under threat of fine.



The internet has a long memory, even if the mainstream media does not.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
"Grassroots" Health Care Group Accused Of Wage Law Violations
Nail On Health Care Head
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Every now and then, David Brooks makes sense. Today is one of those days, in his column at the NY Times, Liberal Suicide Watch:

It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes....

We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package.... Then there is the budget.... Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills.

Now I could quibble with Brooks over some points, such as the argument that liberals ever were in touch with America. But generally, at least as to the direction the Democrats are heading, Brooks got it correct.

But I don't know how long Brooks can keep this up. On March 3, 2009, Brooks issued his Moderate Manifesto, in which he declared "Barack Obama is not who we thought he was." That declaration was a re-write of history, as Brooks and other normally sane voters had deluded themselves into thinking that Obama was a moderate. Nonetheless, Brooks' mea culpa was a valuable turning point.

But then Brooks picked up the phone, receiving several phone calls from White House officials taking Brooks to task over the March 3 column. Days later, Brooks backtracked in a column titled When Obamatons Attack, in which Brooks devoted his column to explaining why he was wrong:

On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today.

Mr. Brooks, your column today was correct. You showed backbone, insight, and a willingness to acknowledge what everyone knows about the Obama administration agenda.

Mr. Brooks, do not pick up the phone. Your country needs you.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Brooks Back On Board The Obama Ship Of State
Brooks: "Barack Obama Is Not Who We Thought He Was" - Oh Yes He Is

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook