glenn reynolds

Glenn Reynolds - Instapundit

Law professor at the University of Tennessee who writes the blog Instapundit. Strong supporter of the tea parties and apparently one of the owners of Pajamas Media.

On October 1, 2008 I sent him and other major rightwing bloggers an open letter detailing a highly effective way they could help defeat Barack Obama. I encouraged him to find people to engage Obama in debate on video at his public appearances. Not only would that have revealed the flaws in Obama's policies, but it would have helped raise the level of debate in the U.S.

If you're familiar with Reynolds' snarky, passive-aggressive style I don't need to tell you that he ignored the open letter, as did the others.

Instead, Reynolds supports things like mocking politicians and holding up "bunny ears" behind their head. That's despite the fact that in the latter case engaging that politician in debate on video could have shown hundreds of thousands of people on Youtube just how wrong his policies are.

Glenn Reynolds also told me to "STFU" on two different occasions (and perhaps more), while cowardly hiding behind a pseudonym.

Reynolds is a libertarian with Randroid tendencies, and he's repeatedly highlighted cases of those who threaten to "go Galt". That would consist of those who don't like policies crafted by our elected representatives turning their backs on the U.S. - taking their marbles and going home - even as the U.S. fights two wars and has massive unemployment. Some patriots.

Last modified Sep 7, 2014
Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Don't take Glenn Reynolds' advice, Part 7271930B (Instapundit, USA Today, "A revolution in the works?") - 02/05/13

University of Tennessee law professors Glenn Reynolds of the "Instapundit" blog shows yet again why you shouldn't take his advice.

This edition is in USA Today ( ) entitled "A revolution in the works?":

...According to a Pew poll released last week, more than half of Americans view government as a threat to their freedom.

Elizabeth Price Foley confused by terms "liberal" and "conservative" - 10/15/12

Elizabeth Price Foley is a constitutional law professor and author of the book The Tea Party: Three Principles. Over at the site of Glenn Reynolds, she offers a guest post [1] that even someone like Sean Hannity would realize is clueless:

A question about Tea Party cleaning up trash left by Obama supporters (San Francisco, Sally Zelikovsky) - 10/09/12

A recurring theme of the Tea Parties movement is that they clean up after themselves. Literally: by picking up their own trash after their events. They contrast that with the dirty, filthy librul hippies who support Obama or who are in the Occupy Wall Street movement. This theme is largely true, but it's also incredibly ironic as I'll discuss below.

Walter Russell Mead blames the victims of globalization, mass immigration (California, The American Interest, Kotkin) - 07/15/12

For a while I've been tracking the "Fiscal Con": examples of fiscal conservatives deflecting blame from the impacts of the policies they support or ignore.

Now, Walter Russell Meade ("WRM") offers what might be called the "Global Con".

From '"Green" Energy Bias Killing California' [1]:

Tea Party incompetence: an example from PJMedia (Helen Smith v. John Scalzi) - 05/20/12

Here's yet another example of a Tea Party leader showing how incompetent they are (note: see Tea Parties for our extensive coverage).

There is, however, one difference between the current and most past instances.

In the past, Teapartiers seemed to have being the prime example of the "Dunning-Kruger effect" [1] as their goal.

In this case, at least the Teaparty leader has admitted they're incompetent.

Two examples of conservative failure (CPAC, rap, Crowder, Reynolds, V. Jackson) - 02/11/12

The first example is from an Ed Morrissey post [1] about a Friday event at CPAC ("Conservative Political Action Conference"):

Rightwing's muted response to Brown signing unpopular, anti-American immigration law - 10/09/11

If California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that dared raise taxes on multi-billionaires by even a few pennies, you can bet that rightwing internet activists would be up in arms about it.

Amity Shlaes dares not tell you a major cause of high teen unemployment (Glenn Reynolds) - 07/04/11

Amity Shlaes is a Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow and writes a column for Bloomberg News. As such, acknowledging that massive low-skilled immigration just might be a major cause of massive teen unemployment is something that she dare not do lest she be drummed out of the establishment.

How many millions of his fellow citizens does Glenn Reynolds think are "parasites"? - 05/31/11

The reader will forgive me if I admit to being momentarily taken aback by Glenn Reynolds referring to potentially millions of his fellow citizens as "parasites"; given his history I shouldn't be surprised that he'd write this [1]:

WILL AMERICA SEE EUROPE-STYLE RIOTS? Newsweek sounds hopeful, but in America, unlike Europe, it’s usually the taxpayers who are behind the revolutions, not the parasites.

George Will misleads about a root cause of California problems - 05/21/11

Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have a cruel trick they like to play on the people of California: whine about the problems California faces in order to push one part of their agenda, while ignoring how another part of their agenda caused the problems in the first place. See the fiscal con page for a detailed description and several examples.

The latest pundit to pull the Fiscal Con is George Will of the Washington Post, who offers "Golden State blues", link. In the article, he misleads his readers by not revealing a major cause of high spending:

[California's supposedly high] tax levels are surely related to these demographic facts: Between 2000 and 2010, Los Angeles gained fewer people than in any decade since the 1890s, and Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area have the slowest growth rates since the end of Spanish rule. For the first time since 1920, the Census did not award California even one additional congressional seat.

The high taxes and Americans leaving the state are related: a major cause of both is high low-skilled immigration. George Will (who at least acknowledged immigration's role last year) does not do that this time.

Instead, he focuses on Republican state senator Bob Dutton; see his name's link for some background.

ADDED: A main promoter of the Fiscal Con is Glenn Reynolds; he links to Will's piece at instapundit . com/121134. While (as could be expected) he just quotes and doesn't add anything, he obviously approves of the article.

Glenn Reynolds, Ace support mindless, authoritarian heckling of Newt Gingrich - 05/17/11

The video below shows Newt Gingrich being confronted by an angry GOP voter in Iowa about Gingrich's recent comments about Paul Ryan. The voter presents no argument against anything Gingrich has ever said or done but instead just tells Gingrich: "You undercut [Ryan].... you're an embarrassment to our party...

What Koch defenders aren't telling you (Reddit, Reason, Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Weigel) - 02/24/11

It used to be that only a small number of people had heard about the billionaire Koch family and the "Kochtopus" (those persons and groups funded by or otherwise linked to them). Now, because of the standoff between Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and public employee unions in that state, that's all changed and the Kochs are fast assuming the role that George W Bush played for the Left (and George Soros plays for the right).

Sure as night follows day, various sources are rushing to defend the Kochs. But, oddly enough, all those defenses fail to point out two key items on the Koch's agenda:

1. In the 90s, the Kochs were one of the major forces behind NAFTA (link), and today the Kochtopus advocates for other free trade agreements and for free trade in general. The base of the tea parties might not take too kindly to knowing about that.

2. If the Kochs supporting NAFTA wouldn't make the teaparty base happy, then make sure they never find out that various members of the Kochtopus support loose and even open borders. See the entries on the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, and Dan Griswold (from CATO) pages for starters. In fact, Griswold was the "inspiration" (per Margaret Spellings) for George W Bush's anti- and un-American guest worker scheme.

Bush wanted to open the U.S. labor market to the world in a massive H1B-style scheme that would have sent formerly middle-class wages closer to world levels, and Spellings specifically named teachers and nurses as those who would have to compete against low-wage workers brought in from abroad.

Nowadays, the Kochtopus' support for loose/open borders no doubt plays a major role in why the teaparties have largely ignored the immigration issue despite how it's more vital and more fundamental than spending and most other issues.

Immigration is also the issue where the leaders of the Democratic Party, the far-left, and union leaders are weakest and could easiest be discredited. In fact, the Service Employees International Union even paid someone linked to the Mexican government to agitate illegal aliens inside the U.S. Yet, no doubt because of the Kochs and those like FreedomWorks (also part of the Kochtopus), the whole wider issue of immigration is off the table.

Here are some of the Koch defenders who've ignored those two issues:

1. Someone using the name "epistemicfail" posted "STOP THE KOCH BROTHERS. They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties" at Reddit (redd . it/frrth). Whether the author is a pothead or someone linked into the "Kochtopus" isn't clear, but I suspect the latter. It's a cute attempt at a bribe, like a lawyer trying to engender support for a criminal by highlighting how they like cats. It's probably just a coincidence, but a former Reason Magazine employee named Julian Sanchez used the phrase "epistemic closure" to refer to closed-minded rightwingers.

2. The Reddit post linked approvingly by Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine who says, "I don't know who epistemicfail is, but the whole thing is totally worth reading".

3. Doug Mataconis of Outside the Beltway links to both of the above, adding little:
For more on Doug Mataconis, see the link (vulgar language warning).

4. Glenn Reynolds links to Gillespie:

5. John Hinderaker of Powerline hasn't linked to the Reddit piece yet (there's still time). However, he offers several pro-Koch posts in his stock pompous-but-empty style:

A day doesn't go by--hardly an hour goes by--without some new attack being launched against these two lonely libertarians... Why? Simply because they are rich--their company is one of the best-run and most successful in the world--and conservative. The Left is trying to drive them out of politics and, more important, to deter any other people of means from daring to support conservative politicians or causes.

He does have a point about the Left only liking the rich donating to political causes when they're on the liberal side, and he does have a point that people shouldn't be dissuaded from donating to political causes. However, he doesn't point out why everything isn't gravy and why some of his readers shouldn't be so fond of the Koch agenda.

6. Dave Weigel offers his own fan post to the Koch brothers:
He fails to note that he used to work for the Kochtopus' own Reason Magazine, he pretends that concerns about Koch influence only started recently (rather than having existed for decades and involving both the brothers and their father), and, of course, he highlights only the liberal-friendly aspects of the Koch agenda:

They have, for decades, bankrolled libertarian think tanks and programs, and they help put on conferences where conservative ideas are spread. Among the ideas they end up spreading are drug legalization and opposition to the Patriot Act. The Tea Party was the first movement funded in part by the Kochs that really took off.

UPDATE: Powerline gets a reply from the New York Times' Eric Lipton: It boils down to how you define "showdown"; wouldn't trying to restrict union power necessarily involve a confrontation of some kind?

And, others defending the Kochs include:

* Mark Steyn:

What's happening in Wisconsin is all about money: budgets, shortfalls, obligations, perks, pensions, privileges - and the burdens of the beleaguered productive class that pays for it. In a story awash with money, the Koch brothers are the least of it. They're certainly billionaires, and that's a lot of dough. Of it, what they inject into the political process is little more than a rounding error.

I don't know whether Steyn is part of the Kochtopus, but that "rounding error" certainly seems to have bought the Kochs a lot of friends.

* Sean Parnell (not the Alaska governor) from the Center for Competitive Politics offers a fan post at Washington Examiner (owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz):
Parnell's blub "Sean Parnell is the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group dedicated to protecting First Amendment political rights") fails to note that he used to work for the Heartland Institute which is part of, you guessed it, the Kochtopus. There's that rounding error again.

* David Harsanyi offers his own version of the "rounding error" (

The libertarian Kochs are super rich and gave less than $2 million to Republicans in the last election cycle, which mathematically speaking amounts to nothing.

Yet another example of Teaparty being useful idiots for the Koch brothers? (Madison union protests) - 02/19/11

Are the tea parties useful idiots for an attempt by the billionaire Koch family to fight unionization in order to increase their profits? The latest example of the Koch family pushing an agenda that helps their bottom line and getting help from the teapartiers in that endeavor comes from the protests between public sector unions and Republican governor Scott Walker in Madison, Wisconsin. I haven't been closely following the issue, but at the very least it's clear that the Kochs are attempting to take advantage of the issue to push their agenda. And, pushing that agenda would help the bottom line of their energy and resources empire.

The Kochs helped elect Walker [1], and their Americans for Prosperity has now created a site to support him and opposing at the least collective bargaining by public sector unions. However, it might also be an attempt to oppose collective bargaining in general [2]. Meanwhile, the Kochs have a financial interest in reducing labor costs in Wisconsin (as they do in other states) [3].

Today, the tea parties held a counter-protest featuring luminaries such as Andrew Breitbart ( National Review interview: ), Gateway Pundit, and Herman Cain ( ). Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds is going all out (,, and probably more).

On the one hand, unions are somewhat of a negative force in the U.S. because most of them support illegal immigration, with groups like the Service Employees International Union getting a good part of their dues from money that was earned illegally. The SEIU even paid someone linked to the Mexican government to organize immigration marches inside the U.S. And, allies of the unions also support mass/illegal immigration. And, excessive demands by public sector unions might in fact lead to budget shortfalls.

On the other hand, the billionaire Koch brothers are at the least taking advantage of this issue to push an agenda that would help their bottom line. And, the teapartiers are being useful idiots for them. And, the same types of people who harp on public sector unions in regards to California's problems (while ignoring the impact of the massive immigration they support on the state) are now involved in the Madison counterprotests.

So, there doesn't appear to be a good way out on this issue. The last thing we should want is a victory for the teaparties and their Koch stringpullers. But, another last thing we should want is for a victory by Barack Obama and groups that support illegal immigration.

UPDATE: Via this, part of gov. Walker's "Budget Repair Bill" (PDF link, excerpt at [4]) would allow Wisconsin state energy assets ("heating, cooling, and power plants") to be sold to private companies or their operations transfered to private companies. Surely it's a coincidence that the Koch family is in the energy business and that the sales would be done "with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state".

UPDATE 2: Yet another questionable, possibly Koch-friendly action by Walker happened last month (link):

A plan to spend $100 million on a boiler that would burn plant-based fuels at UW-Madison's Charter Street power plant was axed Thursday by Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch... Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, said Huebsch halted spending on the boiler based on Walker's wishes... According to a 2008 university study, converting the plant to burn biofuel was the most expensive of the options considered and would be about twice as expensive as using other coal-burning technologies or natural gas... University officials credited the strong support of former Gov. Jim Doyle for the plan to burn biofuels. Doyle and state environmentalists praised the switch to biofuels because such fuels can be grown in Wisconsin and would, in the long run, be more reliable and less expensive than natural gas, which must be purchased and piped in from out of state.

The source for the claim that biofuels would save money long-term isn't given, but at least from that article it doesn't sound like Walker was taking exception to that claim. Instead, it at least sounds like he was being penny wise and pound foolish. And, coincidence or not, the Kochs are in the natural gas business and even have a pipeline network in Wisconsin. Hopefully someone will ask him for an explanation.

UPDATE 3: Instead of pressing Walker for an explanation, dim Democrat/union supporters are doing what they tend to do: play games. The latest example is Ian Murphy from the Buffalo Beast (free weekly) calling Walker and pretending to be David Koch from the Koch family (link). On the call, Walker says nothing in any way incriminating; the call (unless Walker was waiting for the "secret code" or knew it was a prank) makes clear that Walker had not been previously coordinating with the Kochs. And, the idea that a politician would rush to take a call from a major donor is only shocking to those who are completely naive.

The stupidity highlight of the call is this:

[A Walker assistant] was eager to help. “I was really hoping to talk directly to Scott,” I said. He said that could be arranged and that I should just leave my number. I explained to Gilkes, “My goddamn maid, Maria, put my phone in the washer. I’d have her deported, but she works for next to nothing.” Gilkes found this amusing. “I’m calling from the VOID—with the VOID, or whatever it’s called. You know, the Snype!”

If I said that, it would be with the recognition that the Kochs fund loose borders groups and support mass immigration. However, Ian Murphy doesn't have that excuse: it's doubtful whether he knows that the Dems/far-left/unions and the Kochs support the same basic immigration policy.


[1] Per this:

According to Wisconsin campaign finance filings, Walker's gubernatorial campaign received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC during the 2010 election. That donation was his campaign's second-highest, behind $43,125 in contributions from housing and realtor groups in Wisconsin... The [Koch] PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett...

...Walker's plan to eviscerate collective bargaining rights for public employees is right out of the Koch brothers' playbook. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation (see Reason Magazine) have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. Several of these groups have urged the eradication of these unions. The Kochs also invited (PDF) Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-union outfit, to a June 2010 confab in Aspen, Colorado; Mix said in a recent interview that he supports Governor Walker's collective-bargaining bill. In Wisconsin, this conservative, anti-union view is being placed into action by lawmakers in sync with the deep-pocketed donors who helped them obtain power. (Walker also opposes the state's Clean Energy Job Act, which would compel the state to increase its use of alternative energy.) At this moment - even with the Wisconsin uprising unresolved - the Koch brothers' investment in Walker appears to be paying off.

[2] AFP created, which just redirects to The petition there says:

Union dues should be voluntary, and the state should not be in the business of collecting them. Union certification should require a secret ballot. Collective bargaining should not be used to force extravagant pension and health benefits that cripple state budgets... These common-sense reforms have made the union bosses desperate to disrupt Wisconsin government and overturn an election. They must not be allowed to succeed. In fact, every state should adopt Governor Scott Walker's common sense reforms.

[3] From this, quoting ThinkProgress:

Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines in Wisconsin. While Koch controls much of the infrastructure in the state, they have laid off workers to boost profits. At a time when Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch awarded themselves an extra $11 billion of income from the company, Koch slashed jobs at their Green Bay plant


16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders - 01/17/11

Enablers of the tea parties have, of course, been completely intellectually dishonest when attempting to defend themselves against claims that Jared Loughner is linked to them in one way or another. One example is here, and today's example involves the New York Times piece "Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin" (link).

Based on the relevant portion of that article [1], Loughner sounds a bit like a libertarian or perhaps anarchist [2]. Instead of considering the whole of the relevant portion of the NYT article, Tea Party enablers stop at the part about not liking George W Bush, attempting to portray Loughner as a liberal. (Personally, I think he had no clear ideology but might have been motivated by Tea Party tactics.)

The NYT article gives the impression of someone who leans more to the libertarian side, and teaparty enablers are trying to transmogrify it into making him a liberal:

* Gateway Pundit offers "Finally We Know What Drove Insane Left-Wing Pothead Loughner to Violence: GEORGE BUSH" [3].

* Rich Lowry links to the NYT article and stops at the part about Bush:
He's also still trying to blame Clarence Dupnik.

* Glenn Reynolds links to the Lowry post with "LOUGHNER: NOT EXACTLY A TEA PARTIER: “His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”" (

* Pat Dollard offered at post linking Loughner's school to George Soros and quoting the Bush part of the NYT piece (but not the rest). He also seems to have deleted the post which was at: and

* Andrew Breitbart tweeted a link to the Dollard post before it was apparently deleted:

Why did Soros put target on Jared Loughner's young brain? Will MSM scrutinize #HeatedPoliticalStudentIndoctrination?
- twitter dot com/AndrewBreitbart/status/27077637046280194

* Dana Loesch tweeted a link to the NYT article:

So Loughner hated Bush . Lots of people still owe others an apology. Let's see if they have the character to do it. - twitter dot com/DLoesch/statuses/27038728664915968

* Matt Drudge at post time is linking to Page 3 of the NYT piece with the text "AZ SHOOTER: BUSH HATER..."

* Fox News offers the blog post "NYT: Arizona Shooter Was a Bush Hater" which stops at the Bush part of the relevant portion:

* IowaHawk tweets:

Loughner a 9-11 Truther whose "anger would well up at the sight of G.W. Bush" Mission Accomplished, @markos
- twitter dot com/iowahawkblog/status/27015807926009856

UPDATE: Earlier I said Loesch linked to the Dollard post; she just linked to the NYT piece. I've updated this with their full tweets.

UPDATE 2: The Dollard blog post is back at:
It was unavailable while he "[e]xpanded the story." (twitter dot com/PatDollard/status/27125395375529984).
I've added an image he included with his post to show the types of people who enable the teaparties.

* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Claims by Tea Party enablers that Pima Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped Loughner are false
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting

[1] By Jo Becker, Serge Kovaleski, Michael Luo and Dan Barry. Relevant portion:

But Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”

Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.”

Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.”

[2] Many libertarians were opposed to George W Bush, and libertarians, the Teapartiers, and conservatives in general are "all about less government".


Finally, we know what drove Tucson shooter mad… GEORGE BUSH.
The Corner discovered this buried in a New York Times article, via Instapundit:
(This little nugget was hidden on page 3 of the online article.)

Did Pima County Sheriff Dupnik ignore Jared Loughner's warning signs before Gabrielle Giffords shooting? - 01/13/11

Almost immediately after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and several others by Jared Lee Loughner, Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik began politicizing the tragedy [1]. Part of that politicization was justified, part was not. Specifically, considering the role that an overly hostile political environment might have played in the tragedy and urging calm is acceptable, but naming specific persons (Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh) as possible contributing factors is not.

In any case, supporters and enablers of Palin, Limbaugh, and the tea parties movement responded by going on a witch hunt against Dupnik, using his initial claim that Loughner had made death threats [2] to claim that Dupnik knew about Loughner's issues and had done nothing. In some cases, they claimed that he had done nothing because Loughner's mother worked for Pima County. [3]

However, the police reports on Loughner's past contacts with the Pima sheriff's office (summary here; in full here) and Pima Community College (read them here; PDF cached) have been released, and neither indicate any death threats. Loughner's negative past contacts with the Sheriffs are on two minor matters; the contacts with the College are more severe however none of them would seem to offer any reasonable person a clue to what was to come.

So, while Dupnik needlessly politicized this, the teaparty enablers' attempts to smear him as incompetent or corrupt strongly appears to be false. Unless he and his office were mindreaders, there's little they could have done to stop the tragedy.

UPDATE: From this:

Jared Loughner's increasingly menacing behavior, what may look like a psychotic spiral in hindsight, likely would not have been enough to have him forced into psychiatric care, much less arrested... mental-health and legal experts say it's likely that no one could have seen a tragedy coming before Saturday... Even with Arizona's broader laws on involuntary psychiatric commitment, it's still a high bar...

ADDED: See also
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting

[1] From this, search for more:

Dupnik called Arizona a "mecca for prejudice and bigotry," assigning a measure of blame for the rampage that killed six and wounded 14 others to overheated political "vitriol."

[2] From a 1/9/11 Reuters report (link):

Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords. He said the authorities believe he may not have been working alone.

[3] The epicenter of tea party claims was the 1/9/11 post "Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office" (

The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it... Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.

Either that never happened, or the records linked above are incomplete. More than likely, it never happened. "The Cholla Jumps" has a follow-up post (

I had to source the puzzle pieces and vet the information with people who assured me they had first hand information regarding Jared Loughner. I wanted documentation. Unfortunately the mere possesion of the documentation would be a violation of HIPPA laws and the track back would be detrimental to the livelyhoods and lives of the people involved... Anyone in Law Enforcement or Mental Health in Pima County that ever had contact with Mr. Loughner is now in bunker mode. Everyone is afraid of lawsuits down the road. They are evaluating their behavior and checking to make sure they followed all rules governing the care of Jared Loughner... Lawfully some of the people that had knowledge of Mr Loughner could never come forward without subpoena by a lawful authority. Others are just too afraid.

Based on that, it's almost certain that their initial report was just made up.

None of that kept AllahPundit from retransmitting their tale ("Did Clarence Dupnik miss the red flags on Loughner?",
did-dupnik-miss-the-red-flags-on-loughner), even if he CYAs:

we’re getting lots of e-mails about this post, but I’m unfamiliar with the site and can’t vouch for its credibility. Under those circumstances I’d normally pass on it, but since America’s new standard of journalism requires no supporting evidence whatsoever before tossing an assertion into the news stream, here you go. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. The important thing is, does it serve your political agenda?

Moe Lane was even less cautious (

it is not a matter of controversy whether or not Loughner made death threats, or at least it should not be. As was reported by both local sources (via here) and Reuters, Sheriff Dupnik himself revealed that Loughner had made death threats against at least one person who was not Congresswoman Giffords. This happened. What the The Cholla Jumps site is alleging – and which has not yet been confirmed- is the following [claim as above]... The question is, is this true? We don’t know – yet – but it’s certainly plausible. Again, we know that there were death threats made, because Dupnik himself admitted that they had happened (that’s the NPR link). And we also know that Loughner was sufficiently unstable to have been thrown out of college as being, frankly, a menace to the local community. And when I say ‘thrown out’ I want it to be understood that the police were involved, because they were. But it could be that this is not actually a true report: a violent paranoid schizophrenic with a history of erratic behavior might have managed to restrain himself to making death threats to one specific person outside of the jurisdiction of the Pima County Sheriff’s Office – thus making him not specifically the problem of one Clarence Dupnik...

Needless to say, that was linked by Glenn Reynolds ( ).

Note that AllahPundit later admitted "There were no missed red flags as far as I can tell" (

Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation (Giffords shooting, Loughner) - 01/09/11

Glenn Reynolds takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to offer "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel" (link) in which he tries to run away from the toxic political environment that the tea parties movement - of which he is a leader - has created:

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate." ...There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source... ...To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

The latter is, of course, a false choice. While Jared Lee Loughner was almost certainly not affiliated with the teaparties, the environment that they created certainly didn't help. If the news were full of high-level intellectual debate - instead of screaming, threatening teapartiers - would someone like Loughner be prompted to do what he did? Perhaps, but the possibility seems to be more remote than in the current hyperventilated environment. And, whether Loughner himself was motivated by the environment that the teapartiers have created, there are plenty of other nuts out there who might one day take their apocalyptic rhetoric the wrong way. The teapartiers would be wise to at least take the Loughner tragedy as a warning of where their rhetoric could lead, but they won't.

And, Reynolds has apparently forgotten about all the things the tea partiers and their leaders have said and done. Here's a short list:

* Sharron Angle's talk of "Second Amendment remedies"...

* Reynolds own frequent snarky comments against all government workers...

* Linking this ( which contains "[Tea Party] Protestors held signs demanding lower Hoboken taxes, shouted for a recall of elected officials and someone even held a tarred-and-feathered effigy of Mayor Dave Roberts."

*, with the "tarred and feathered" coming from Reynolds: "TAXPROF: A Government Takeover of 401(k)s? If that happens, we may see members of Congress literally, not just figuratively, tarred and feathered. But I think Congress knows that. . . ."

* "I am entirely serious when I say that all the officials involved should be tarred and feathered."

* "Obviously, we need more people willing to insist on their rights. These guys [judges who sent "children to jail in return for kickbacks"] should be tarred and feathered."

* In June 2009, Reynolds promoted teapartiers swarming a politician...

* In July 2009, he promoted giving politicians "bunny ears" (instead of promoting discrediting them by intellectually engaging them)...

* In October 2009, he promoted shouting down politicians...

See the Glenn Reynolds page for much more.

ADDED: See also
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders
* Claims by Tea Party enablers that Pima Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped Loughner are false
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting

Tea Party "Patriots" mostly silent about anti-American DREAM Act (and rightwing bloggers too) - 12/07/10

The "patriots" in the tea parties aren't exactly going all out to oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty. The loudest voices against the Obama administration have mostly gone silent against an amnesty which could cover between one to two million illegal aliens and which would allow those illegal aliens covered by it to take college resources away from their fellow citizens.

Why Joseph Fein isn't credible (political analyst/fund raiser; Los Angeles; DC, "Valley of the Shadows") - 11/17/10

Joseph Fein is a blogger and political analyst who, as will be shown below, isn't a credible source. He describes himself as a political analyst involved with fundraising and research and as a legislative analyst involved with appropriations and Central Asia oil and history. And, he recently attacked me on his blog "Valley of the Shadows" [1] and did so in a way that shows he has trouble analyzing and understanding.

A nobody saying bad things about me would mean little, except Glenn Reynolds linked to it [2]. In the same post, Reynolds linked to a Google search for "shut the f--- up lonewacko", a phrase that the cowardly Reynolds twice posted in reply to my comments on his site; see the last link for the details on that and for many other reasons why Reynolds isn't a credible source.

Here's a variant of the comment I left at Joseph Fine's link; I've changed it since I found out his name:

This site wrote about me yesterday and got a link from Instapundit, and I didn't find out about it until now. That's some influence!

There really isn't much to reply to here since Joseph Fein doesn't really say much.

But, Joseph Fein does lie.

You won't find me "hating Illegal Immigrants".

And, Joe Fein is lying when he claims I wanted to vote in "Liberals". As it says at that post "the GOP is going to have big wins across the U.S. no matter what. I'm simply suggesting going against that trend in order to send a message." Can't Joseph Fein read and understand?

Regarding smart questions, Joe Fine clearly isn't smart enough to realize what a smart question is, and how smart questioners can show how someone's argument is faulty. What politicians say is full of holes and they're able to get away with it because the MSM lets them. Fein isn't standing against that.

Regarding building coalitions, that's not my forte. It'd be great to find others who are more meet-and-greet types to help me build a coalition. Heck, even Joseph Fein might be able to do that, except he's shown above that he just isn't that smart.

As for the disclaimer about "vile idiots", I've included that or similar in comments because every single teapartier who's replied to any of my comments have shown themselves to be vile idiots: they lie, they mislead, they smear, and they're completely unable to present a valid, logical argument against anything I've ever written. Joe Fein's content-free post is no different.

P.S. The Urkobold link is from when I used to comment at Reason. I stopped after a particularly vile smear, and none of those at Reason - contributors or commenters - were ever able to present a valid argument to anything I wrote:

P.P.S. "tom swift" is another example of muddled thinking. I'm not claiming that the base of the teaparties is "colluding" to encourage illegal immigration. My claim is that they're useful idiots for those who do in fact support mass/illegal immigration. They're going along with them by doing things like largely ignoring the issue for over a year. That isn't the same as "colluding".

1. Fein criticizes me for not having a blog roll without realizing that this isn't a blog. Since 2002 I've posted over 9200 entries and, while many of the ones in earlier years are a bit on the "bloggy" side, in recent years I realized the huge limitations of how most bloggers do things: snark and so on. Unlike many bloggers I don't just snark at people, I try to show how they're wrong. And, frankly, I don't want to be associated with the Glenn Reynolds of this world. I do link to bloggers when warranted, although some times that's a bad idea.
2. Fein's false claim that I "hate" illegal aliens is in line with how some GOP leaders smear those generally on their side.
3. Many of the posts at this site show how mainstream media reporters are wrong. See the "Reporters" section of my Topics page for links to dozens of examples. If Fein tried to discredit a reporter, he'd fail just as miserably as he failed in his post about me. Instead of helping me discredit reporters who aren't on his side, he's smearing someone who - were he smarter - he'd be helping.
4. Since I tried to ask Obama a challenging question in February 2007, I've been urging people to go to his appearances and those of other politicians and ask them tough questions. As mentioned above, it's obvious that Fein has no idea what a tough question is. He isn't able to overcome that deficiency and help promote my question authority plan despite how it would help clean up Washington and encourage a higher-level of debate in the U.S. Instead, he simply sneers like a little child at my attempts to solve problems.
5. Fein refers to me as "Lonewacko", which was where this site was previously located... two years ago. While I still use my "LonewackoDotCom" account when commenting on sites, that's partly to avoid having to get a new account (and associated Google account) and also because the teaparty types are so dumb that a new account would trigger even more false claims. Generally speaking, when criticizing someone it's a good idea to use their more popular name rather than one they mostly stopped using two years before. Fein couldn't even get that right.
6. What Fein - and many others - can't understand is that some people take principled stands even when it costs them visitors. If I were fake and unprincipled - something Fein clearly understands if little else - I could easily support or at least be neutral on the teapartiers. And, I could easily write partisan posts that would get links from Reynolds and from other rightwing bloggers. Or, I could write things that would get links from FireDogLake and the like. I don't do that. Something like the repudiate teaparty post isn't going to please either rightwing or leftwing partisan hacks. It was, however, the best thing for the U.S. Others obviously have different priorities.

3/18/11 UPDATE: The Glenn Reynolds post in full is: "A FISH, A BARREL, a smoking gun. The sentiment is widely shared." The first is a reference to the "" site, but might also be a threat. The "smoking gun" links to Fein's post, and the second links to this (typically vile) Google search: link. Based on that search, I'm willing to directly accuse Glenn Reynolds of hiding behind a pseudonym to tell me to "STFU".


Glenn Reynolds still supports childish mocking of politicians rather than intellectual challenges - 11/03/10

It's been two weeks since I last showed how Glenn Reynolds is wrong, so let's take a look at his latest childish, thuggish advice [1]:

BARNEY FRANK SURVIVED SEAN BIELAT’S CHALLENGE, but as this “train-wreck” victory speech demonstrates [2], it really got under his skin and he’s lashing out in what looks more like an angry concession speech. I think Barney Frank is actually hurt that he had to take it, not just dish it out this time around. But the Tea Party movement has not yet begun to dish . . . .

But Frank’s childish behavior provides a good lesson in how to deal with the political class. Mock them, and don’t treat them with the respect they - wrongly - feel is their due. They’re not used to being challenged. Keep it up, and odds are they’ll either quit, or embarrass themselves fatally.

Rightwing bloggers like to complain about union thugs and the like, and in many cases they've had a point. However, for that point to have any validity, the rightwing would have to repudiate ideas like Reynolds. He's shown time and time again (see his name's link) that he's a childish thug (and perhaps a cowardly one at that).

He's suggesting incivility rather than open debate, and his idea of a "challenge" isn't to debate someone with the goal of showing how their ideas are wrong, but simply to engage in childish mockery. His ideas would lower the level of debate in the U.S. even further than it's already been reduced by the sign-waving, costumed, tantrum-throwing teapartiers. And, one wonders how we could trust a movement that was based on mockery rather than policy; would they think that the way to resolve international conflicts was to call foreign leaders names?

I don't know whether he says the above because he realize he's incapable of intellectually engaging someone like Barney Frank, or because he knows that the tea parties base is incapable and just wants to give them something they might be able to accomplish. In either case it's not good for the U.S. and not even good for the teapartiers themselves.

[2] That's a link to

The Glenn Reynolds, Don Surber, Joe Walsh propaganda team (Illinois) - 10/22/10

About eight months ago, a congressional candidate conducted an overt publicity stunt, asking why a public meeting wasn't being started with the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, something similar is playing out - perhaps spontaneously or perhaps covertly - involving the congressional campaign of Joe Walsh of Illinois, who's running against Melissa Bean. Spontaneous or not, the latest incident has the hallmarks of a "boob bait for Bubba" GOTV propaganda effort, and that's heightened because one of those involved is Glenn Reynolds [1].

First, I'd like to ask you to read this post about "Allez Java". Then, compare that to this Don Surber post: link. Aside from the French locution, aren't they very similar? The post Surber links to is here. And, as a capper, a Joe Walsh video where he takes advantage of the Pledge incident is at That has a description of "The League of Women Voters hosted a candidate forum featuring Joe Walsh & Melissa Bean running for the 8th Congressional District in Illinois. The League of Women voters got schooled on what it means to be an American".

At this point hopefully you're asking yourself why a pompous, posturing goof like Joe Walsh is questioning the patriotism of the League of Women Voters. They're a leftwing group masquerading as non-partisan and they support amnesty, but that doesn't mean they aren't patriotic. It's valid to question the patriotism of some of those at the other meeting earlier this year, but that's because they obviously have divided loyalties. The same isn't true of the LWV as a whole. It's also valid to question whether Walsh knew the LWV didn't plan on having a Pledge, and whether the person in the audience is a shill who works or volunteers for his campaign. It would also be good journalism for the three sources of this story - including Surber, who works for a regional newspaper - to get the moderator's side of things.

And, one aspect of real patriotism is realizing that Americans have different opinions about various topics. Those in the tea parties orbit take the opposite position: they lie and smear, they put symbolism over substance (causing them to think George W Bush is more a patriot than those who didn't allow 14% of Mexico's working-age population to move to the U.S.), they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a socialist, they engage in other forms of red-baiting, and they use the "patriot" label as if the rest of us aren't.

And, all to support an agenda that, were voters informed of everything it entails, would be rejected by the vast majority of Americans. Some patriots.

UPDATE: From this:

[Illinois LWV Executive Director Jan Czarnik] said someone is not a better American just by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance... “It's a phony patriotism issue is what it is,” she said. “They must think it helps their campaign.”

She's not helping herself by putting things that way rather than making the points above. Also, the Walsh campaign claims they had nothing to do with the audience member who asked for the Pledge, and a Walsh supporter has come forward claiming to be that audience member. We also learn that none of the campaigns requested the Pledge beforehand, and as can be seen on the video Walsh doesn't request it at the start of the debate. Using his own standards, should we question his patriotism? No, because we don't want to do things his way.

UPDATE 2: Updated to spell "propaganda" right. Doh!

UPDATE 3: The moderator has filed a police report due to death threats she received after Glenn Beck said this about her on his show (link):

We wanted to look at the moderator, Kathy Tate-Bradish, from the League of Women Voters. Oh, she sounds so neutral and everything. I mean, she’s even neutral on the Pledge, apparently — just a typical woman voter trying to get the truth out. No, not so much — not so much... She is on fire for Obama. She is a big-time Obama supporter. In fact, so much so, she’s part of his Organizing for America arm. Hmm. She’s even hosted campaign event in her home in 2007, part of her post on OFA’s, Organizing for America Web site, "Hope Action Change."


Mary Schaafsma, the issues and advocacy coordinator for the Illinois League, told ThinkProgress this afternoon that the only reason Tate-Bradish resisted reciting the Pledge was because it had not been included in the debate format, which the candidates had agreed to ahead of time, noting that the League has been doing candiate forums and debates like the one Beck highlighted "for decades." She also said that following the threats, the League locked the doors to its Chicago offices for several days and alerted the building management of the possible threat. “I’ve been working in politics and nonprofits for a long long time and I never seen this level and pitch of vitriol,” she said.

[1] He links to Surber's post at

Ask John Yoo about how to save California for real - 10/02/10

Torture memo author John Yoo offers "How to Save California: Outlaw Public Employee Unions" [1]. That's definitely an idea worth considering, but Yoo oddly enough is ignoring a more fundamental issue that would help California even more. That issue, of course, is immigration and specifically illegal immigration.

Ed Morrissey, Glenn Reynolds, Newsbusters don't tell whole truth about Bell, California - 09/22/10

Eight public officials in the city of Bell, California were recently arrested regarding the pay scandal in that city (link).

Tea Party "Patriots" Admit Failure (They Just Don't Know It) - 09/12/10

The Tea Party "Patriots" have released a promo video in which they admit that they've failed. And, to compound that failure, they don't realize that they're admitting that they've failed. You can see their promo at and my video response is attached (and also available at ).

The script of my response is below, first some notes:

* See tea parties for my extensive coverage, including things you won't hear from them or their other opponents.

Delusional John Hinderaker on the "Tea Party Majority" (Powerline) - 09/07/10

There are few groups more delusional than the tea parties, but John Hinderaker of Powerline is apparently trying to give them a run for their money. In the Glenn Reynolds-linked [1] post "Tea Party Majority" [2] he says the following about the image below:

One could draw many conclusions from this, but I would suggest two. First, far from being a fringe phenomenon, the Tea Party movement represents the solid core of mainstream American opinion. Second, when the Republicans take control of Congress, they should not be afraid to cut spending and programs.

That's just, well, nuts. The underlying tea party ideology is indeed fringe, and provably so: they are to one degree or another libertarians. Some of them - such as Reynolds - are believers in Ayn Rand and thus even more fringe than "mainstream" libertarians. Needless to say, the Libertarian party and small-l libertarians aren't an electoral force. Further, the teapartiers are almost completely comprised of a subset of Republicans and independents. Very few Democrats support the tea parties, and not all Republicans support them either. To do math in the Hinderaker style, a majority of Obama voters would have had to switch to the tea parties, and that did not happen. Now, some of the other ideas of some teapartier followers - such as a general interest in reducing illegal immigration - are indeed majority opinion. However, they aren't stressing that but their fringe economic ideas.

The way to explain the chart is that respondents certainly would like a smaller government and lower taxes... until they actually see what would happen. Try and take away their benefits, or make them drive on bumpy roads, or reduce border protections even more, and see what they say. Not to mention the indirect impact that a reduction in public spending would have, such as increasing social strife. Very few Americans actually want to live in a libertarian paradise like Somalia.

A more honest poll would ask how much they want government decreased and would ask if they'd still support those changes given the direct and indirect impacts on them.


Mark Levin's insane tea party rant - 08/31/10

Glenn Reynolds [1] and Dan Riehl [2] direct our attention to the opening of yesterday's Mark Levin show in which that right-wing radio host gave, per them, a "Rousing Call To Arms For The Tea Party Movement": link.

Bankrupting America's misleading government spending video ("Rebel Economist") - 08/13/10

Gretchen Hamel - formerly part of the Trade Representative's office in the George W Bush administration and now with the website Bankrupting America - offers the video entitled "REAL or FAKE: Can you tell which of these government spending projects are real or fake?" ( ).

Rand Simberg's Darwinistic, anti-American citizenship policy - 08/12/10

It's time to reach into the Big Bag of Crazy known as the Glenn Reynolds / Pajamas Media universe. This time with the anti-American screed called "The Real Anchors / Anchor babies? Maybe we should worry more about native anchors" ( by one Rand Simberg. The fact that he's turning to Robert Heinlein to craft a new citizenship policy is actually the least of his sins.

Example of Tea Party not handling racism correctly; supporting massive immigration + far-left concepts; Glenn Reynolds stupidity - 07/31/10

This post will briefly outline yet another example of the tea parties unknowingly supporting far-left concepts and massive immigration, not handling charges of racism correctly, and, to start with, yet another example of why taking the advice of Glenn Reynolds is a very bad idea.

At, Reynolds links to this using its sub-headline: "Spencer Wilking Finds That New York’s Tea Partiers Aren’t The Bigoted White Guys You Fear." In other words, the article is saying that the New York group consists of the "good ones"; the sub-headline implies that other tea party groups might be different. What about, say, Tennessee's Tea Partiers? Would those be the "Bigoted White Guys You Fear"? If Reynolds is going to link to the article, shouldn't he have at least figured out and commented on what the sub-headline was implying?

The linked article itself includes a section about David Webb, a black tea partier who heads New York's Tea Party 365 group and who comes off as a bit of an updated Reverend Ike. He's all about the money and not about challenging the far-left on social issues. Not only that, but he (perhaps unwittingly) supports far-left concepts. At an event he says, "We have diversity in Tea Party 365. I want you to see the picture" as he invites a diverse group of tea partiers to take the stage and with Wilking pointing out that there's "only [one] white guy among them". And here you thought that bean-counting and "diversity" for its own sake were just far-left concepts. Yet, those far-left concepts are right at home in that tea party group (and others).

Not only that:

In order to energize the ranks with new members, the Tea Partiers I spoke with say they need to beat a perception of being conservative wingnuts. Tea Party 365 is eager to gain more members, turning to a demographic often ignored or even persecuted by conservative activist groups: immigrants. With New York City’s large swaths of immigrant populations it’s a logical step to drive recruitment, and Tea Party leaders say that recent hard-working immigrants will respond to their message of “fewer taxes and less handouts.”

What if they don't? What if they fall into the clutches of the far-left New York Immigration Coalition instead? The only thing the tea parties have to offer those "immigrants" is a platform of fiscal austerity, something that only appeals to a small percentage of Americans and that would probably appeal to a much smaller percentage of immigrants. No matter how effective the TP365's outreach, the NYIC would always be able to undercut them, especially since TP365 in effect supports the same far-left concepts that the NYIC uses to obtain power. (And, of course, the tea partiers can't even use the correct terms. By "immigrants" presumably they mean naturalized citizens who thus are no longer immigrants.)

The article also includes:

The sign-making party is a cheerful event, helped along by the adults’ nostalgia for classroom memories prompted by the ample supply of poster board, markers and paint.

Whether intentional or not, that highlights a indisputable fact: the tea partiers are children. They act like children at public meetings, throwing tantrums, ranting and raving, and playing dress-up games. They aren't capable of making an argument but think that simply saying something and repeating it over and over will make it come true. And, what few policy ideas they have are childlike: they have their own "utopian" vision that would negatively impact millions of their fellow citizens and that most Americans would reject if forced to endure it.

Glenn Reynolds has horrible advice for opposing the "ruling class" - 07/18/10

Just a couple years ago, Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") was a strong supporter of the status quo. Sure, he had a few quibbles with spending here and there, but he was a big fan of the George W Bush administration. Nowadays, of course, he hunkers in his bunker preparing for the end of the world and the time for the Righteous to make their journey to Galt's Gulch. And, now as before, he dispenses horribly bad advice.

Glenn Reynolds still promoting bad, dangerous, anti-American policies - 06/27/10

Glenn Reynolds names his "comment of the day" [1]:

A reason for the “wealth or income gap”: Smart people keep on doing things that are smart and make them money while stupid people keep on doing things that are stupid and keep them from achieving.

Mickey Kaus on immigration: not as bad as most Democratic Party leaders - 06/01/10

Mickey Kaus is challenging fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer in the California Senate primary; he realizes the futility of that effort and he's just doing it to raise certain issues including immigration.

Is Glenn Reynolds an anti-American extremist who hopes the "entitlement class" riots, or not? - 05/16/10

Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") excerpts "Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for state welfare to be ended in California" (, article: link).

Will teaparty and rightwing bloggers stumble us into amnesty? - 05/09/10

As if there wasn't enough to worry about, here's something else: rightwing bloggers and the tea parties might "oppose" amnesty in such a way that makes amnesty more likely.

Glenn Reynolds promotes ineffective tirades against politicians (borderline harassment; alcohol) - 04/13/10

On Sunday, Barney Frank was flying from L.A. to Boston when two sisters on the flight - apparently ophthalmologists - tried to engage him in debate about Obama healthcare. When he declined, they began shouting at him, and apparently alcohol was involved (link). Per one of the passengers: "The women had been drinking, and they were crying and shouting... They were clearly the antagonizers, and Mr. Frank was kind of minding his own business."

So, how does tea parties promoter Glenn Reynolds respond? Does he suggest that drunken, mid-air tirades against politicians aren't effective and just coarsen what little debate we have in the U.S.? Does he point out that Frank is generally approachable ( ) and that there's a time and a place? Does he suggest that instead of shouting things at politicians they try to ask them tough questions such as outlined in my question authority page?

Of course not (

THIS SORT OF THING SHOULD HAPPEN MORE OFTEN: Barney Frank gets a high-altitude haranguing on health care. Two women ophthalmologists, whom Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, dismissed as “bitchy” — which really set them off. Frank got an earful. As far as I’m concerned, these guys shouldn’t be able to go anywhere without getting an earful. Luckily for Ready he’s the partner of a gay Democrat, because if he were a Republican that remark would have been sexist.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse chides me for encouraging discourtesy [note: link], but most commenters seem to disagree.

Many of Althouse's commenters are even less interested in what's the U.S.'s best interests than Reynolds, so take that with a grain of salt.

Why Shikha Dalmia isn't credible on immigration (Part 1?) - 04/07/10

At Forbes, Shikha Dalmia of Reason Magazine offers "Obama Can't Handle Immigration Reform/The leading proposal will curtail liberties without making life better for immigrants" [1]. The article shows yet again why she isn't a credible source on this issue, at least for patriotic Americans. Those who put libertarian ideology or corporate profits ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens are quite welcome to consider her a credible source.

In the article she comes out against the Graham-Schumer amnesty plan due to, among other things, its national ID card component. [2] She also suggests waiting a few years before beginning the push for comprehensive immigration reform. That's good, but for the rest she shows that her loyalties don't lie with U.S. citizens but with her globalist ideology or something else:

...The fundamental problem with America's immigration system is that it forces Americans to justify to their government why they want to bring someone into the country, instead of requiring the government to justify to them why they can't. Uncle Sam is less gatekeeper, more social engineer. Instead of focusing on keeping out those who pose a genuine security or public health risk -- the only immigration policy consistent with ideals of limited government -- it is driven, among other things, by a need to manage labor market flows and the national demographic makeup... And Uncle Sam gives each country an annual quota for green cards, because, otherwise, who knows, America could be overrun by colored hordes from China and India, upsetting its white, Anglo-Saxon character...

The U.S. doesn't really have a "white" character, and it certainly doesn't have an "Anglo-Saxon" character unless that's Dalmia's description for everyone who's white. Dalmia - just like those on the far-left - would invite the world to come here in part in order to show that we aren't a racist country. Her implied definition of whether someone is a risk is highly flawed and would allow foreign countries - Mexico, China, India and some others - to in effect colonize parts of the U.S.: sending us millions of people in order to gain or just coincidentally gaining political power inside the U.S. Dalmia - the supposed libertarian - would use force (deception and trickery) to take political power away from U.S. citizens.

Any reform bill worthy of the name therefore has to fundamentally shift the orientation of America's immigration policy so that it is driven less by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat and more by the genuine needs of the American economy and people.

The American people have spoken out in poll after poll that they want immigration either kept at the same level or reduced. Perhaps Shika Dalmia used "genuine" in the sense that those dummies don't know what they need, and libertarians just need to impose the correct way on them. order to appease Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the anti-amnesty crowd, the [Schumer-Graham] bill will not only impose onerous fines on them for breaking an anti-freedom, irrational law; it will also force them to stand in the back of the green-card-line that for many categories has a decades-long wait.

It's unclear whether she thinks just our immigration laws that prevent millions of low-skill workers from coming here are "irrational" or whether she's against immigration laws in general. The great majority of Americans would disagree with the former, and almost every American would disagree with the latter. What Dalmia wants would go against the wishes of the great majority of Americans; her libertarian scheme would have to be imposed through force of one kind or another, whether physical force or just deception.

She is however right about the "decades-long" part, but what she isn't mentioning is discussed on the immigration line page: there really isn't a "back" to the line since new people are joining it all the time. That means that illegal aliens would make it more difficult for future legal immigrants. Since we can only process so many people at a time - and the USCIS is unable to deal with their workload as it is - one wonders what Dalmia would have us do: do little or no checking at all of whether illegal aliens are a security risk? Since illegal aliens would have to be processed in some way, the only logical explanation is that Skihia Dalmia wants us to simply wave them through. Needless to say, that would allow thousands of criminals to get on the path to citizenship. No doubt a fair number of potential terrorists would take advantage of her plan since they tend to follow our immigration plans and be adaptive.

[The Schumer-Graham bill] will step up interior enforcement -- code for raiding employers and cracking down on their workforce to round up undocumented workers, a shameful Bush era policy that this administration has continued.

Workforce enforcement has been going on for decades; it wasn't invented by George W Bush. And, one wonders what form of immigration enforcement Shikkia Dalmmia would support. Would she even allow us to have border enforcement? She basically wants everyone in the world to be able to come to the U.S., against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.

If I haven't shown to the reader that Shika Dalmia can't be trusted on immigration matters, please leave a detailed comment explaining why you think that and I'll go into more depth.

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Glenn Reynolds links her article, adding nothing ( That would seem to indicate that he agrees, and that's also not surprising.

[2] Oddly enough Bob Barr also today comes out against that plan due to the ID card; is there a Journ-o-List for libertarian hacks?

Do Glenn Reynolds & Spencer Jakab of FT really think California needs a torturing dictator to keep spending under control? - 04/05/10

Spencer Jakab of the Financial Times offers the blog post "California and Kazakhstan - just who is the underdog?" ( Referring to a letter that California treasurer Bill Lockyer sent to Goldman Sachs complaining about them marketing default swaps that "wrongly brand our bonds as a greater risk than those issued by such nations as Kazakhstan", Spencer Jakob says:

...Californians may derive their hazy image of Kazakhstan from Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen's satirical take on a country where he claims the main forms of entertainment include the "running of the Jew". The real Kazakhstan, although not problem-free, looks fairly solid compared to California and many other states - a fact that should spook investors in America's $2,800bn municipal bond market.

Needless to say, Glenn Reynolds links to it ("BORAT GETS LAST LAUGH? Financial Health: California vs. Kazakhstan",

This is all jolly great fun, except for the fact that millions of Americans live in California, and the "free trade, loose immigration" types like Reynolds and the Financial Times favor policies that have hurt we millions of Americans in California (and everyone else in the U.S. except for a select few).

And, of course, there's that part about Kazakhstan not being "problem-free". See, among many others, "Kazakhstan failing to prevent torture of detainees: rights group" (link) from just a couple weeks ago and referring to Amnesty International.

I don't think Reynolds and the FT would favor a torturing dictator just as long as he was in favor of fiscal austerity, but...

Jack Cashill shows yet more tea party incompetence, analyzes McClatchy tea parties-as-racists article - 04/02/10

Over at the ironically-named American Thinker, Jack Cashill offers "How Quickly Spread the Tea Party Smear" (, linked of course by Glenn Reynolds,

What Evan Coyne Maloney won't tell you: the tea parties are far worse than the anti-Iraq war protests - 03/31/10

Back on December 15, 2002, I was the first journalist of any kind to go to an anti-Iraq War protest and come back with photos. A couple months later, Evan Coyne Maloney did the same, in his case with video. Both of us subsequently went to several other peace movement protests and shot pictures (me) and video (him) of the loopy signs and protesters.

Glenn Reynolds promotes high-cost, low-payoff political tactics. Stupid or vain? - 03/28/10

Putative law professor Glenn Reynolds writes (

SO LAST WEEK READER RYAN BLEEK WROTE, asking what he could do to fight big government plans, given that he lives in an uncompetitive Congressional district. Various readers chimed in. Here’s some advice.. [much deleted] ...I think the most important lesson is to stay engaged, and don’t be silenced.

1. The "much deleted" consists of six ideas from his readers, and all of them are high-cost (in terms of time and effort) and low-payoff. That doesn't mean that some people have to do them to some extent in order to achieve their goals: knocking on doors, voting, and all the rest are vital. However, they don't use leverage, in which a smaller amount of force can be used to have a greater impact.

2. A plan that does use leverage is my question authority plan. If you don't know about that, please go take a look and compare it to what Glenn Reynolds is promoting. The plans he promotes would require tens of thousands of people and even then might not be effective; my plan would require only a handful of smart, experienced people and would be highly effective to extremely effective depending on the questions on the questioners.

3. Back in April of last year, Glenn Reynolds promoted something similar to my plan. I believe that's the first and only time he's promoted something in line with my ideas. Did he forget about the plan he promoted? Does he think knocking on 500 doors a day is more effective than embarrassing a politician in an intellectual fashion on video? Does he think that doing things in a less effective way is OK just as long as he doesn't acknowledge a plan I promote? On a more cynical note, does he realize that the tea parties would flub asking tough questions, and he wants to give them something to keep them busy?

Write him and ask.

P.S. Regarding the "don’t be silenced" bit, several of his link targets have tried to silence me, and someone from his university and his city gave me some unsolicited advice along the same lines.

Tennessee: Roy Herron and Glenn Reynolds think you're stupid - 03/17/10

Roy Herron is a Democrat running for Congress in Tennessee. Glenn Reynolds reprints an email he received from Herron (