national review: Page 1
Needless to say, there are far too many examples of the incompetence of rightwing bloggers than I could ever cover. However, to pick one out of the hat, take a look at the reaction to "The Puzzle of Black Republicans" by University of Pennsylvania professor Adolph L. Reed Jr (link).
Fiscal conservatives side with America-denouncing billionaire (Cato, Dan Mitchell, Heritage, Brownfield, Sean Medlock, Daily Caller, HotAir) - 05/11/12
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin recently denounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes he'd owe when that company goes public. Hopefully to most people the idea of turning your back on your country  to save money would be abhorrent.
Pat Buchanan off MSNBC: Van Jones and elites win; working Americans lose; Teaparty still incompetent - 01/08/12
UPDATE: He's now officially off MSNBC, prompting this question: why couldn't conservatives keep Pat Buchanan on the air?
MSNBC's top executive said Saturday that he hasn't decided whether conservative commentator and author Pat Buchanan will be allowed back on the network.
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 , Loughner sounds a bit like a libertarian or perhaps anarchist . 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" .
* 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.”" (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113333)
* 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:
patdollard.com/2011/01/soros-educated-loughner-bush-hater and bit.ly/hHeNpf
* 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? http://bit.ly/hHeNpf
- twitter dot com/AndrewBreitbart/status/27077637046280194
* Dana Loesch tweeted a link to the NYT article:
So Loughner hated Bush http://bit.ly/hQXdxb . 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" http://nyti.ms/g5vkMa 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
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.”
 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.)
Sharron Angle goes after Reid on issues outside his control, won't press hard on immigration - 07/23/10
The video at peekURL.com/vc2rep7 is a new campaign ad from Sharron Angle in which she says: "Harry Reid says he does more for Nevada... He's done more for unemployment... He's done more for the foreclosure rate...
Kyl: Obama says he won't secure the border without comprehensive immigration reform (UPDATE: backtracks?) - 06/20/10
[See the second update]
"Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.
There isn't much reason for Kyl not to be telling the truth, and his claim matches the actions of the Obama administration. They're promoting "reform" (aka amnesty) at the same time as failing to secure the border. Like the Bush administration, they're trying to pretend they're interested in securing the border while at the same time not really doing anything.
As for whether what Obama said is this grounds for impeachment and whether hearsay would be acceptable evidence isn't clear.
However, this does give those who are willing to do something an opportunity. Go to a public appearance by a Democrat, read them Kyl's quote, and ask them specifically to detail how they intend to secure the border now, without waiting for "reform".
6/21/10 UPDATE: Per this:
...in a statement to POLITICO, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer denied Kyl’s account of the conversation, saying “the president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it.”
“There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system,” Pfeiffer said...
...Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said the senator is not backing down from his assertion, despite the White House’s denial.
“There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them,” Patmintra said. “Senator Kyl stands by his remarks, and the White House spokesman’s pushback that you must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Senator Kyl’s account.”
Kyl tells us that the comments [on the video] were “taken a bit out of context,” and that the “they” he was referring to was the Left, “the president’s base,” and not the administration. “I did not try to start a fight. This meeting happened a month ago and we were talking in the context of his political problems. He was talking about how they think that if we secure the border, you guys [Republicans] won’t have the incentive to work on comprehensive immigration reform.”
See the first update, where his spokesman says he stands by his remarks. Now, he's saying that his remarks were taken out of context. That doesn't speak to Kyl being a trustworthy source. Obama probably said what he's quoted as saying at the start of this post and Kyl is probably just seeking political cover, but now I'm less inclined to believe him.
Earlier this month in an interview with TV reporter in Ecuador, Hillary Clinton stated that the Department of Justice will be challenging the new Arizona immigration law in court. I was a bit skeptical since she's not the DOJ and she might have been basing it on an assumption rather than knowledge.
Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.
Contacted about Clinton's comments today, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said they reflected her beliefs.
"The Secretary was asked about the Arizona law during a TV interview in Ecuador," he said. "She believes that a better approach is comprehensive immigration reform, and said so. Regarding how far along the legal review is, that is a matter for the Department of Justice."
Despite the senior administration official's comments, an official at the Justice Department told CBS News today that the question of whether to sue is still under consideration.
This would be a political mistake. The Arizona law has wide support, and suing would reduce Obama's popularity even more than it is now, not to mention what it would do to the popularity of Democrats in Congress.
On the other hand, the Obama administration has to know that a good part of their opposition is incompetent. In the worst case scenario, the loudest opposition to the suit would consist of those in the tea parties movement, and the DOJ would continue with the suit just as the Democrats were able to get healthcare reform.
The first thing to do is to recognize that most of the loudest voices on the conservative side of things are great at making a lot of noise, but aren't so great at actually coming up with and following through on plans. Undercut them or prop them up as necessary.
If you want to prevent a suit in the first place, apply the same techniques as are outlined on the page about how to reduce illegal immigration.
there’s little additional harm for the administration in making moves that enrage conservatives, because the conservatives are already enraged, and no matter how enraged they get, they can only vote once. (You’re thinking, “shame there’s no ACORN on our side,” huh?) The independents are probably a lost cause. The only way to mitigate a rough year is to energize the base, and so for all extents and purposes, policy decisions for the next four months will be driven by the need to motivate disappointed liberal voters.
His political hackery fails to take into account the fact that not all liberals - and certainly not all Democrats - support massive illegal immigration. And, he fails to promote efforts that would cause those on the fence to realize the massive downsides of the current situation. The only people who should support massive illegal immigration are ideologues and those who directly profit; Geraghty isn't trying to split that small group off from the rest.
Obama gives INTERPOL immunity from U.S. law; Constitution doesn't apply; precursor to ICC? - 12/28/09
On December 17, Barack Obama signed "Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425"  which lifts Ronald Reagan-era limitation on how the international police force INTERPOL can operate inside the U.S. From Andrew McCarthy of National Review (link):
Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States... ...Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
12/30/09 UPDATE: Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy isn't worried about this:
However, he also admits that he isn't familiar with these topics; he asks for those more knowledgable to weigh in in comments, and I didn't see anyone like that.
And, Jake Tapper of ABC News throws cold water on this here, quoting a "counterterrorism official from the Bush years" as saying "Conservatives can't have it both ways... You can't be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you're complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security." Not exactly reassuring, especially if Tapper's unnamed source is Richard Clarke, someone not of high integrity.
1/12/10 UPDATE: The National Rifle Association - more credible than the above on issues like this - says there's nothing to worry about (link). However, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek says the same, offering a standard establishment mocking rebuttal of a Chuck Norris column about this issue (link).
By the very rules established by the Democrats, the mainstream media, and their Republican allies, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review might now qualify as a "Birther". In order not to be a "Birther" - as defined by the aforementioned groups - one must believe to the core of one's being that not only was Barack Obama born in Hawaii, but that he's told the complete truth about his past and he's not trying to cover anything up. Expressing any doubts will not be tolerated; one must confess that any deviation from the narrative provided by Obama is impossible. I didn't make those rules: they did.
But, now Goldberg offers "A Ring of Truth(ers)/Truthers vs. birthers" (peekURL.com/zx5dilg) in which he admits that - while he doesn't believe it - it's possible that Obama is lying about where he was born. Once again: according to the very rules established by the
witch hu, er, anti-Birthers, simply admitting it as a possibility is enough to get Goldberg tarred as a dreaded "Birther".
Note also that later on in the article, he implicitly admits that Republican leaders are aligned with the anti-Birther groups against a good segment of the GOP base. And, in the following he builds a large strawman and shows he doesn't understand the arguments of his opponents; neither of those are much of a surprise from someone like Goldberg. Some of those who are tarred as "Birthers" base their argument on Obama not being a Natural Born Citizen as used but famously not defined in the U.S. Constitution. Goldberg doesn't mention that; actually understanding someone's argument is too difficult for him.
Herewith, two scenarios.
Scenario A: The supposedly inept president of the United States carefully planned and orchestrated the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history...
...Then there’s Scenario B: An ambitious and extremely clever politician, who has at best been selectively forthcoming about large chunks of his youth, lied about his place of birth so he could be eligible for the presidency.
To further this scheme, he has arranged for the full and/or original version of his birth certificate to remain under lock and key. At most, a handful of supporters and lawyers are in on the whole thing.
Now, which one is more believable? For the record, I don’t believe either. But it seems to me the "birther" hypothesis is vastly more plausible than the "truther' hypothesis. Politicians lie to advance their careers. You can look it up. Whole governments rarely orchestrate incredibly complex acts of physics, logistics, and mass murder all the while pinning guilt on others (who boast that they acted alone).
Just for clarification: "Truthers" believe Scenario A. "Birthers" believe Scenario B.
National Review offers the editorial "Born in the U.S.A." (peekURL.com/zkdwktb) about the Obama citizenship issue. Not only are they aping the title of a deceptive FactCheck page about this issue , and not only are they using similar statements to those used by FactCheck, but they're lying almost as badly as FactCheck does. I'll only discuss this part:
The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced - the document is formally known as a "certificate of live birth" - bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate - which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.
The article's post time is currently given as July 28, 2009 4:00 AM, presumably Eastern. Some time that appears to be around 9pm Eastern of the day before, Chiyome Fukino issued her new statement. It's my strong hunch that this editorial was written before that time, but - just to be extra generous - I'm going to assume that the editorial was edited after that time and reflects the National Review's current idea of the truth. Despite that, they're still lying:
1. The statement "several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate" is false. No Hawaiian official has ever said that. Read the actual statements from October 2008 and yesterday, and compare that to the National Review's lie. In neither statement do they say anything about the picture on Obama's site. Further, aside from a statement from Janice Okubo that she won't confirm, no other statements from the Hawaiian government confirmed anything relating to this issue. The last sentence in the National Review's quote is false for the same reasons. Those aren't just minor points: if NRO doesn't even understand what those earlier statement actually contain but is instead going off distorted Associated Press summaries, can their opinion be trusted?
2. The document has not been inspected "by reporters". The only people outside the Obama camp who claim to have seen a paper copy are FactCheck. As discussed at that link, they aren't exactly a credible source. They also aren't document experts, nor did they call in document experts. Per their page , those who they claim saw the document were their "representatives" and "staffers", not reporters. And, their pictures were later silently recompressed and edited to remove camera data that had a date months earlier than the pictures were supposedly taken.
3. National Reviews wants to deal with this "formally", but they can't even read what it says on the picture on Obama's site. The document in question isn't a "certificate of live birth" as they state, it's a "certification of live birth". To some that might be a small difference, but when dealing with legal issues seemingly minor issues can be very major. I recently updated a few posts in which I'd made the same error because I care about getting things right. Obviously, the National Review does not.
Also: in comments on an earlier post, Smitty says that NRO has added things to this editorial; if anyone can do a diff please leave a comment on this post.
Please send brief, polite emails that focus only on the lies discussed above or other lies in the editorial to one or more of the following: letters *at* nationalreview.com, JonahNRO *at* gmail.com, klopez *at* nationalreview.com, amccarthy *at* nationalreview.com, author *at* victorhanson.com, hemingway *at* nationalreview.com, comments.kurtz *at* nationalreview.com
UPDATE: I had the links for the press releases reversed, now corrected. Also, the links with the red "S" after them are links to "summary pages" that contain a list of our coverage of that specific person, group, or topic. Some of those include a summary at the top; others are simply lists of links to posts. Hovering the mouse over a link with a red "S" should bring up a window containing the first part of the summary or at least the number of posts about that topic.
UPDATE 2: I sent emails to the first five NRO writers listed above shortly after post time and then another today just to KLo asking if they wanted to say anything. I didn't receive any responses. Another email address that I should add is NRO's new editor, Rich Lowry: comments.lowry *at* nationalreview.com
Also, this page unfortunately engages in ad homs and I haven't read the whole thing but it might have some interesting information on the editorial and on FactCheck.
UPDATE 3: Andrew McCarthy posts "Suborned in the U.S.A./The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born" (link) in which he points out some problems with the editorial.
If 100-1,000 people show up at a rally, the event may or may not get media coverage, and that coverage may or may not be snarky or dismissive. Congressmen may or may not notice, and the President's spokesman will announce he's not aware of them... But if 100-1,000 people show up at a town council, city council, etc. meeting, in most places, that's an earthquake. It varies widely, but most local government budget meetings are sleepy affairs, and many local lawmakers are used to settling their spending with minimal scrutiny. They've never seen anything like several hundred people showing up with the same message of "don't waste my money."
The "anti-immigration movement" charted! (Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, VDare...) - 05/09/07
Solana Larsen (whose name rings a bell for some unknown reason) is the president of "PuertoDansk" and a contributor to opendemocracy.net and other sites. At the site of the North American Congress on Latin America, she offers "The Anti-Immigration Movement: From Shovels to Suits" . If you read the recent Max Blumenthal interview, you already know what she's going to say and how wrong she is. In fact, she and Son of Sid recently appeared on a panel together .
I have a feeling that it won't be too very long before even more truth comes out about the case of the two Border Patrol agents (Ramos/Compean) who strongly appear to have been railroaded by their own government. So, let's take a look at the short, select list of some of those who've supported the Bush administration's side of things:
Jonah Goldberg retreats from his Wilsonian observations back into orthodoxy:
...What conservatives understood then and what President Bush understands now is that America itself is a radical nation, founded on the revolutionary principle that self-government is simultaneously the best form of government and the most moral. And that lovers of liberty in all parties should seek to conserve that legacy. The circumstances we face today are new, but the principles are eternal. So yes, George W. Bush is a revolutionary, but he is merely the latest in a long line of American revolutionaries.
However, from Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution:
...the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.
Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation's fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force. Maybe I'm misreading Bush - I'm writing this based on my notes, and without having had time to study the text - but sheesh.
On domestic policy, a "broader definition of liberty?" Citing as useful precedents the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G. I. Bill? Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ. He as much as announced that from now on the GOP will be a party of big government...
And, from George F. Will on ABC:
[the inaugural parade was like] something you'd see in a banana republic.
I already posted this inside another post, but this May 9, 2002 column deserves its own post:
...Near the end of the NRO article Griswold [of the Cato Institute] insists that he is not for "open borders," but his record suggests otherwise. A story in the Christian Science Monitor (August 30, 2000) by Scott Baldauf is particularly revealing. Baldauf describes a new project of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Border Patrol that specifically targets highly sophisticated criminal smuggling rings that employ infrared scopes, two-way radios, and computer databases. The project goes after smugglers associated with organized crime rather than simply individuals who cross the border illegally.
These criminal gangs have done enormous damage. One gang, headed by Mexican criminal Nick Diaz smuggled about 12,000 foreigners, most of them from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and India, into the United States. These illegal immigrants paid $20,000 a piece to be placed in safe houses in 38 different states. Senator Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) praised the new INS/Border Patrol initiative. So too, did Judy Marks, a spokeswoman for the National Immigration Forum, a left-wing advocacy group, that nearly always opposes any form of border control.
But not Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute. Instead, Griswold specifically attacked the new Border Patrol initiative that targets organized crime. Scott Baldauf records Griswold's response as follows: "Noting the INS's new strategy, he sighs, 'It's just another example of government trying to stop people from doing something that is natural, to better their conditions.'" In addition, Baldauf quotes Griswold as declaring: "The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration; it's that it's illegal..."
Previous coverage in:
More Kato-Aid, senor?
First, they say there's no such thing as a "transnational progressivism" movement. And, more importantly, they point out that the author mistakenly believes that Princeton University has a law school.
As I pointed out in the comments to the post linked above, some professors and others "[envisage] an international political monolith with which to replace America" as the article states. For an example, see the piece "Could U.N. use military force on U.S.?":
Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and Britain from waging war on Iraq without a Security Council mandate?
Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."
The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (link), a human-rights group in New York City.
In a position paper, Ratner wrote that by invoking the resolution, called "Uniting for Peace," the "General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to 'maintain or restore international peace and security.'"...
As far as the statement "Within such a regime the key political unit would not be the individual citizen who voluntarily associates with fellow citizens but the racial, ethnic, or gender group into which one is born," that should ring some bells. Multiculturalism, "corporate pluralism," etc.