Government-Funded Wealth in Washington D.C.'s Suburbs

This is pretty fascinating, especially given the national angst about taxing and spending. At WaPo, "Government dollars fuel wealth: D.C. enclaves reap rewards of contracting boom":

Millions of dollars worth of federal contracts transformed Anita Talwar from a government accounting clerk into a wealthy woman — one who can afford a $2.8 million home in the Washington suburbs with its own elevator, wine cellar and Swarovski crystal chandeliers.



Talwar, a 59-year-old immigrant from India, had no idea that she and her husband would amass a small fortune when she launched a company providing tech support to the federal government in 1987. But she shrewdly took advantage of programs for minority-owned small businesses and rode a boom in federal contracting.



By the time Talwar sold Advanced Management Technology in 2004, it had grown from a one-woman shop to a company with more than 350 employees and $100 million in annual revenue — all of it from government contracts.



Talwar’s success — and that of hundreds of other contractors like her — is a key factor driving the explosion of the region’s wealth over the last two decades. It also has exacerbated the gap between high- and low-wage workers, which is wider in the D.C. area than almost anywhere else in the United States.



Washingtonians now enjoy the highest median household income of any metropolitan area in the country, and five of the top 10 jurisdictions in America — Loudoun, Howard and Fairfax counties, and Falls Church and Fairfax City — are here, census data shows.



The signs of that wealth are on display all over, from the string of luxury boutiques such as Gucci and Tory Burch opening at Tysons Galleria to the $15 cocktails served over artisanal ice at the W Hotel in the District to the ever-larger houses rising off River Road in Potomac.

This isn't something to be proud of. The Washington Leviathan is the capitol's biggest driver of wealth, either through government contracting, or through government employment. It's a situation Mark Steyn discusses in America Alone. We've given up freedom to an ever increasing bureaucratic establishment that's the arbiter of material success. And it's self-fulfilling. If you want more people to be successful expand the size and scope of government. Somehow I think James Madison wouldn't have been pleased.



BONUS: See if you can make heads or tails of these two letters to the editor, which are critical of the posts coverage of the government-funded suburban luxury. (There's a reverse kind of outrage, not at the luxury itself, but to the possibility that such media coverage might create a backlash to government largesse.)

What If Gaddafi Holds On?

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "Other regimes in the region will wonder just what, exactly, are the benefits of an alliance with a diffident America":

Top government officials and ordinary newspaper pundits are debating whether the U.S. and its allies should intervene militarily against Moammar Gadhafi, perhaps by establishing a no-fly zone. This is the wrong question. The right question is: What happens if Gadhafi holds on?

That possibility no longer seems remote, as the colonel and his loyalists keep a firm grip on Tripoli and start inflicting military reversals on the rebels. A society as brutalized as Libya's will retain a powerful fear of its dictator even in his hour of weakness. Many Libyans will recall how Saddam Hussein crushed the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings of March 1991. They will recall, too, that the first Bush administration—which included then-deputy national security adviser and current no-fly zone skeptic Bob Gates—stood aside as Saddam viciously struck back.

What happened next is one of the darkest chapters of recent memory. An estimated 60,000 Iraqis, perhaps more, were killed in the revolt. Two million fled the country. The Iraqi people had to endure another dozen years under Saddam. The U.S. spent billions enforcing a no-fly zone that was a case of too little, too late. The war that ultimately toppled Saddam's regime exacted another huge toll in lives, including those of more than 4,000 Americans.

Looking back, it's worth noting that all of this may have been avoided if only the U.S. had forbidden Saddam from flying his helicopter gunships, which proved decisive in turning the tide of revolt. So why won't President Obama run the comparatively minor risk of doing similarly in Libya? Does he think he needs the U.N.'s permission? Sadly, he probably does.

Should the conflict in Libya turn into a protracted civil war, it will mean more killing, more refugees, and even higher energy prices. And should Gadhafi's counteroffensive begin to show results, previously emboldened Libyan rebels could start to panic, and their reversals could quickly turn into a general rout.

Folks can see where Stephens is going with this. It goes without saying that the administration's waffling and timidity is sending powerful signals to the world's tyrants. Iran last year and Egypt last month. Tunisia went under the radar and was expected to be an anomaly by realists like Harvard's Steven Walt. But the message is clear: Don't expect democracy promotion from these amateurs. I like the idea of a no-fly zone, actually. Although I wonder how deep a military commitment the American public will support, particularly without presidential leadership? Not only that, a protracted civil war with massive humanitarian losses could trigger demands for ground troops, and I cringe at the thought of a ground incursion under Barack Hussein's command.

Side note: Bret Stephens is a treasure. He sounds more neocon than Charles Krauthammer. Cool!

Egypt's Neoconservative Moment

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter's is just about the lone GOP voice favoring the pro-Mubarak status quo. Allahpundit is skeptical of McCotter, although Robert Stacy McCain's taking the Burkean angle, cautioning, well, caution. Robert cites Jim Geraghty at National Review, who I don't recall boasting of big neocon credentials, but he's right on with this, "Why Would an American President Tout Mubarak’s Regime?":

As of this writing, the Mubarak regime appears to be tottering. He’s 82 years old and has had health problems. Even if he survives this challenge to his power. Mubarak will be gone someday; even if we preserve the status quo, we can’t preserve it for too much longer. And the status quo isn’t that great for American interests (when we’re the perpetual scapegoat in Egypt’s media).

It was shameful for Obama to hesitate and dawdle before endorsing the Iranian protesters, and it creates the awkward precedent for the Obama administration speaking sooner, and more positively, about protests against the government of an ally. But in the end, why would an American president tout the virtues of a regime that shoots unarmed protesters? Let Mubarak fall. He’s had his chance, and he has failed the Egyptian people.

Exactly.

I've obviously come out for revolutionary change, for example, "Revolt in Egypt: It's Freedom, Stupid," and "If Mubarak is Toppled?"

Now what's particularly interesting to me is the response on the left to what folks are calling a victory for George W. Bush's freedom agenda. See "George W. Bush in Egypt." Barbara O'Brien can't stand it, and she then somehow finds the Obama administration on the right side of history. Not. See the Washington Post, for example, to the contrary, "The U.S. needs to break with Mubarak now." That's not very nuanced, but Barbara O'Brien's not too bright. That said, here's Elliot Abrams, "Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world":

For decades, the Arab states have seemed exceptions to the laws of politics and human nature. While liberty expanded in many parts of the globe, these nations were left behind, their "freedom deficit" signaling the political underdevelopment that accompanied many other economic and social maladies. In November 2003, President George W. Bush laid out this question:

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?"

The massive and violent demonstrations underway in Egypt, the smaller ones in Jordan and Yemen, and the recent revolt in Tunisia that inspired those events, have affirmed that the answer is no and are exploding, once and for all, the myth of Arab exceptionalism. Arab nations, too, yearn to throw off the secret police, to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and to vote in free elections. The Arab world may not be swept with a broad wave of revolts now, but neither will it soon forget this moment.

And even if we give the administration the benefit of the doubt (and considering Barack Obama's abandonment of Iran in 2009, that's being generous), I think the Wall Street Journal captures the right frame:

The best course at this late date is for U.S. officials to keep their words and attention focused on the process of political and civil reform. Our stake in Egypt is not in any one ruler but in a transition from dictatorship to a more stable representative government that can better meet the aspirations of Egyptians.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is right to call for the government to restrain the police and stop blocking the Internet, but it doesn't help when Vice President Joe Biden denies the obvious fact that Mr. Mubarak is a "dictator." The post-Mubarak era is coming one way or another, and the U.S. can't be seen as the authoritarian's last friend.

Check back for updates ...

Revolt in Egypt: It's Freedom, Stupid

Following up from earlier (and my comments on alternatives to Mubarak), here's the take at The Daily Caller: "Muslim Brotherhood Takeover Feared."

Yeah, Islamist fundamentalists could come to power. But considering Caroline Glick's analysis cited previous, beyond outward impressions its six in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

In any case, see Sherif Mansour's comments at Foreign Policy, "Pharaoh's End: A Roundtable":

There's only one lesson that American foreign policymakers should take from recent events in Tunisia and Egypt: freedom matters. The United States has continually supported Mubarak and other oppressive regimes in the region, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Obama administration it finds itself between a rock and a hard place, forced to choose whether to support the ideals of freedom and democracy it espouses and run the risk that in the aftermath, the United States will have lost its allies in the region, or stick with the devil it knows.

If the administration is smart, it will see the writing on the wall and realize that the old order in Egypt, and conceivably the rest of the Middle East, is gone forever. When the smoke clears, Washington will want to be on the right side of history. The United States must now withdraw its support, both financial and symbolic, from the Mubarak regime and avoid any further ties to its oppression.

More at the link, as well as commentary from four other experts.

BONUS: Robert Stacy McCain engages the debate as well, "Whose Bright Idea Was It to Send Joe Biden Out to Talk About Egypt?’"

Hosni Mubarak: 'I've Asked My Government to Step Down'

Well, we'll get the real-life test of my thesis: "If Mubarak is Toppled?"

Updates and videos forthcoming.

2:55pm: Mubarak hangs on. New York Times has a report, "Mubarak Orders Ministers to Resign but Backs Armed Response to Egypt Protests." And at ABC News, "Egyptians Defy Curfew, President Mubarak Announces New Government but Won't Resign: U.S. Reconsiders Aid to Egypt, Secretary Clinton Mum on Hosni Mubarak's Fate."

4:20pm: Videos of two presidents:

If Mubarak is Toppled?

Matt Lewis addressed this yesterday, "Toppling Egyptian President Mubarak: Careful What You Wish For":

Should he be toppled? ...



Even toppling regimes that were clearly anti-American -- from the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- resulted in power vacuums and instability, giving rise to new problems that had been obscured by the heavy-handedness of the ousted regimes. The benefits of toppling an anti-American government may outweigh the costs, and so one naturally wonders about the cost of toppling an ostensibly pro-American one. Were Mubarak's regime an obvious American enemy, such as Iran's, rooting for a revolution would be a no-brainer. But in Egypt, things are a bit more complicated.

I think the question to ask is whether Egypt's Mubarak is genuinely pro-American? Caroline Glick offers the definitive analysis of Egypt's foreign policy interests in the Middle East: "The Pragmatic Fantasy." The fantasy is that Israel's pragmatists believed their vision would best be achieved by allying with Israel's idealists. The reality is that nothing could was gained from the alliance (the Camp David Accords set back Israel's security, for example):

Unlike the starry-eyed idealists, the so-called pragmatists have no delusions that the Arabs are motivated by anything other than hatred for Israel, or that their hatred is likely to end in the foreseeable future. But still, they argue, Israel needs to surrender.

And she adds further, "Egypt has been the undisputed leader of the political war against Israel raging at international arenas throughout the world."



If Israel remains our main democratic friend in the region, American backing for Mubarak has been a disaster. We bought stability in an entrenched "secular" dictatorship on the leading edge of establishment jihad. So will regime change be an improvement? That depends. If the Islamists come to power it could unleash a rage of militant fanaticism around highly mobilized actors in the Muslim Brotherhood et al. (Glenn Reynolds worries about this.) But frankly, it's not clear that violent militants could take power if Mubarak flees. The Weekly Standard suggests that top members of the officer class stand in line to power. The government is a "Free Officers regime" that is "unlikely to fold in the face of 50,000 protesters throwing rocks." That's not much change, and no improvement in the prospects for democracy. And that makes sense, considering Washington's disgusting approach so far. As I noted last night, the Obama administration has held its ground on the wrong side of history and democracy since taking office. And while no one really knows who's driving some of the most newsworthy reports out of Eygpt (attacks on Mubarak's party headquarters, government gun battles with RPG-armed "protesters" in Northern Sinai, etc.), it's without doubt that years of dictatorship have engendered powerful demands for freedom. The New York Times reports on that, "Egyptians’ Fury Has Smoldered Beneath the Surface for Decades." And I think ultimately the freedom agenda that drove U.S. foreign policy before the Obama interregnum is being reaffirmed, and freedom's a big step from dictatorship. Peter Wehner puts things in context, "Vindication for Bush’s Freedom Agenda":

During the course of the Bush presidency, his “freedom agenda” was criticized from several different quarters, including foreign-policy “realists” who believed that the bargain Bush spoke about — tolerating oppression for the sake of “stability” — was worth it.



It wasn’t. The core argument Bush made, which is that America must stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity — the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance — was right. No people on earth long to live in oppression and servitude, as slaves instead of free people, to be kept in chains or experience the lash of the whip.



How this conviction should play itself out in the real world is not self-evident; the success of such a policy depends on the wisdom and prudence of statesmen. Implementing a policy is a good deal harder than proclaiming one. Still, it seems to be that events are vindicating the freedom agenda as a strategy and a moral insight, as even the Obama administration is coming to learn.

So, topple Mubarak. We'll be sorting through the implications of global jihad either way, and without much help from Hussein Obama.



In any case, my earlier essay is linked at New York Times, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mubarak?"



And from this morning, "Army on Streets of Egypt — UPDATED!!"

Army on Streets of Egypt — UPDATED!!

Things are moving so fast it's difficult to know exactly what's happening.

This first clip, from Al Jazeera, shows protesters overcome by tear gas (at about 2:00 minutes):

And here's the scene from the Qasr al-Nil bridge near Tahrir Square in Cairo. Students push back riot police:

And from yesterday, dramatic footing of a man being shot during protests, and Vice President Biden's interview on PBS: "Protests Escalate in Egypt — U.S. Stands by in Realpolitik Mode."

More from Michelle Malkin, "Uprising in Egypt":

They’re calling it “Angry Friday.” Protesters in Egypt may have been cut off from the Internet, but information will always find a way to free itself. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is presiding over a violent crackdown against opponents who have joined a region-wide revolt against autocracy ...

Also, at Wall Street Journal, "Egypt Deploys Military On Cairo's Streets" (via Memeorandum).

UPDATE: Some additional video:

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

From Patriot Skyline, "Obama: Wanted! An Enemy of this Constitutional Republic!":

WE THE PEOPLE "DEEM" that Barack Hussein Obama is an Enemy of this Constitutional Republic!! He has demonstrated clear disregard of Constitution and shown his disdain for the Rule of Law by indicating his willingness to sign the ObamaCare bill without a vote in the House on the Senate bill itself (a use of illegal and unConstitutional sleight-of-hand called "self-executing" "deem and pass") and by accepting a Senate "reconciliation" vote of only 51 Senators without opportunity of opposition filibuster. Obama has vigorously demanded that Congress to pass ObamaCare by "any means possible" even if such means are unConstitutional and against the Rule of Law. The White House is also invoking "The Chicago Way" to intimidate House members. Will House members be paid a "house call" by members of Obama's union friends? All thuggery all the time for Obama!! And all of this is happening under the backdrop that the American people, based on any poll you look at, OVERWHELMINGLY reject ObamaCare and the tactics used by this Administration to attempt to pass it!

Also, at Left Coast Rebel, "Obama Had His Chance... Now It Is Time To Stand Against Tyranny."

RELATED: From NYT, "States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers."

NOTE: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (death to tyrants") is the motto at the official seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Democrats Against Democracy

From Andrew Cline, at American Spectator, "Democrats Against Democracy":

For weeks, President Obama has been demanding an "up or down vote" on health care legislation. So where is the president now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she would like to pass the Senate health care bill in the House without allowing an up or down vote on it?

Pelosi signaled on Monday that she favors Rep. Louise Slaughter's proposal to pass the health care bill, in the words of the Washington Post, "without having members vote on it." Using a House rule called a "self-executing rule," members would vote on a package of amendments to the Senate bill, and the passage of those changes would by rule "deem" the Senate bill passed. But the House would never vote on the Senate bill itself.

That's an awfully peculiar step to take for a party that has spent the last few weeks clamoring about how democratic it would be to do away with the filibuster so we could at last have a simple majority vote on the health care bill in the Senate. What's democratic about voting on a bill without voting on it? And by the way, the self-executing rule also curtails floor debate and disallows amendments. Hail, democracy!

More at the link.

RELATED: At Pundit & Pundette, "Pence on the bill, the process, and the Constitution, in 1.5 minutes." And at the New York Times is loving it. See, "Democrats Consider New Moves for Health Bill" (via Memeorandum).

Desperate Dems Push Filibuster Reform!

I warned about this earlier, at my post, "Pay Attention to the Senate." As noted there, the Democrats, unable to ram through their agenda amid public opposition to socialism, will likely push for major structural reforms.

Well, the desperation is building. See, "Harry Reid Pledges Filibuster Reform."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to take a serious look at revising the filibuster rules at the beginning of the next Congress, calling the current level of obstruction in the Senate unacceptable.

In a reflection of the party's commitment to changing the parliamentary rules, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed the majority leader by saying that his committee would address the topic soon.

"The rules committee is going to start holding hearings on how to undo the filibuster rule," said Schumer, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. The New York Democrat told the Huffington Post after the speech that the hearings would take place two or three weeks from now.

In a speech before a gathering of progressive media, Reid compared the procedural games played by his Republican counterparts to the use of the spitball in a baseball game and the four-corner offense in basketball -- tactics in each sport that were ultimately outlawed.

"The filibuster has been abused. I believe that the Senate should be different than the House and will continue to be different than the House," Reid said. "But we're going to take a look at the filibuster. Next Congress, we're going to take a look at it. We are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that just like the spitball was abused in baseball and the four-corner offense was abused in basketball."

Also, see Ezra Klein, who's been beating the filibuster to death, "Reid Promises Filibuster Reform" (via Memorandum).

It's hard to express how appalled I am at the notion of Democratic Party filibuster reform. See my link at top for more (where I note how radical lefists have gone even further with calls to abolish the Senate). But see as well, Michael Gerhardt Larry Kramer, at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Protect Our Rights, Keep the Filibuster."

'Interrupter-in-Chief'

From Chicks on the Right:

RELATED TOTALITARIANISM: From the New York Times, "Democrats to Press Health Bill With Simple Majority" (via Memeorandum).

Obama at U.N.: Disastrous Agenda

From Ben Johnson at FrontPage Magazine, "Obama’s Dangerous UN Agenda":

Barack Obama’s UN speech advanced a doctrinaire left-wing foreign policy that will hamstring American defense, further sideline the economy, and leave the nation relying on “law enforcement” to chase down terrorists after the fact. His anti-American statements were offensive, but his substantive proposals could do far more damage.

The whole thing is at the link.

See also my response to Obama's speech, "Obama at U.N.: Worst Foreign Policy Ever."

Obama's Post-Allied America

From Abe Greenwald, at the Weekly Standard, "Post-Allied America: The U.S. Shrinks Its Influence and Severs Ties With Sympathetic Global Partners":

With last Wednesday's decision to scrap plans for a promised missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, President Obama put the finishing touches on a new and dangerous entity: post-allied America. With his declaration a week later before the UN General Assembly that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War" no longer apply, he justified his creation. As a string of headlines from Central and Eastern European capitals makes plain, the U.S.'s most reliable democratic partners see the administration's decision for what it was: a historic shift in America's priorities. Adversaries' wishes now enjoy equal baseline footing with the needs of friends. Whatever may tip Washington in this or that policy direction, a history of cooperation or shared ideology will not be a factor. The Obama administration believes, ahistorically, that this will turn bad actors good.

The implications are disastrous. Small democracies, like Poland and the Czech Republic, may fall prey to aggressive, expansionist neighbors like Russia. Rogue and autocratic regimes will go unchecked as they ratchet up various proscribed initiatives. The U.S. will lose access to valuable partnerships, thus halting our ability to roll back dangers and maintain global stability. Already fading is American credibility. How can the U.S. hope to shame China out of abetting totalitarian North Korea when President Obama himself has just agreed to snub the pro-Democracy Dalai Lama out of deference to China? One-time allies will be forced into expedient relationships with our ideological antagonists. Democracy may see worldwide retreat.
The missile defense decision was a knock-out blow to our fraying alliances. But the Obama administration's unmistakable capitulation to the Kremlin was preceded by months of escalating post-ally policy. It should be no surprise that some of the potential dangers listed above have been realized. Treating Israel as just another Middle Eastern country with stubborn complications has led Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into secret security discussions with Moscow. Indifference to maintaining our relationship with Great Britain may be seen as the backdrop before which Scotland freed the murderer of 190 Americans in order to facilitate Libyan oil contracts.

The shift in American policy is more than geostrategic. It is a shift in the realm of ideas. President Obama has not merely sided with anti-democratic states over democratic ones, but supported anti-democratic forces over democratic ones within the same states. Instead of throwing U.S. patronage behind aggrieved Iranian voters, the American president "bore witness" to their deadly struggle before the White House publicly recognized their tormentor as "the elected leader" of Iran. Instead of standing with democratic Hondurans, who refused to see their country go the way of regional banana republics, Obama has decided to refuse them aid and recognition until they accept a would-be self-appointed strongman.

More at the link.

Related: The Washington Post, "Iran Reveals Existence of Second Uranium Enrichment Plant." Plus, Dana Loesch responds, "Obama Knew About Second Iranian Facility?" (via Memeorandum).

Benjamin Netanyahu: 'What a Mockery of the Charter of the United Nations'

At Fox News, "Netanyahu Condemns U.N. for Allowing Ahmadinejad to Deliver Address":

Holding aloft evidence of Hitler's Final Solution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday railed against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust and scolded the United Nations for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak during its opening session of the 64th U.N. General Assembly.

With detailed reminders in hand of the war that sent 6 million Jews to their deaths in concentration camps, including construction blueprints for Auschwitz, Netanyahu took his turn at the dais to recall the agreement within the world body to create the Jewish state and express astonishment at what he witnessed a day earlier in that organization's great hall.

He commended those who boycotted Ahmadinejad's speech, but condemned those who allowed it.

"To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president "legitimacy" just six decades after the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad addressed the body Wednesday, and in the run-up to the session repeated his belief that the Holocaust is a myth.

"What a disgrace," Netanyahu said. "What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

Netanyahu challenged the international community to step up and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but expressed broad disappointment with the United Nations.

The Wall Street Journal's story features a picture of Netanyahu hold aloft Nazi documents during the speech. See, "Netanyahu Blasts Ahmadinejad at U.N." And Haaretz, "Netanyahu Slams UN, Challenges It to Confront Iran." (via Memeorandum).

Also, Jennifer Rubin, "A Speech for the Ages" (via Memeorandum):

If the president’s speech was one of the more embarrassing and shameful displays by a U.S. President before the UN, then today brought a reminder of the power of moral clarity. Bibi Netanyahu delivered a scathing condemnation of those who sat and listened to Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad.

Check also Atlas Shrugs for the full-length videos, "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's UN Speech: 'But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?' 'What a disgrace!'."

Audio: 911 Emergency Call - MoveOn Finger Biter Case

The MoveOn finger-biter remains at large this weekend. Meanwhile, the Ventura County Star has the audio tape of the 911 call to the Ventura County Sheriff on Wednesday night. Also, here's the report from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Search Is On For Suspected Finger Biter":

CNN Reports on William Rice Finger-Biting Story: 'Health Care Debate Draws Blood'

Here's the CNN video:

The story is here, "Man Says He Lost Part of Finger in Fight at Health-Care Rally."

Karoli Kuns is interviewed there, and she's got a lot of activity at her Twitter page. Lots of witnesses to the altercation.

See my earlier report, "Search Continues for MoveOn Finger-Biter: William Rice Interview - Doctors Unable to Reattach Finger, 'I'm No Hero' (VIDEO)."

Readers should call the Ventura County Sheriff with information on the finger-biter: (805)494-8201.

See also, "FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, "Bill Rice Loses Finger Tip To Unhinged Obamacare Supporter":

Bill is a former Ventura County firefighter and his family is very well known and respected in the Newbury Park and Thousand Oaks area.

Flap recalls fondly when there was a fire in my dental practice shopping center, it was Bill Rice who came to my office and made sure there were many fans to prevent smoke damage. He gave service above and beyond – as has his son who is now serving in the Marines.

Search Continues for MoveOn Finger-Biter: William Rice Interview - Doctors Unable to Reattach Finger, 'I'm No Hero' (VIDEO)

This is the photo released by the Ventura County Police Department:

This image provided by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department shows the beginning of an altercation between William Rice, at right in the khaki shirt and olive shorts, and an unidentified man wearing black, who authorities say bit off Rice's little finger. The sheriff's department is seeking the public's help in identifying the man in black at far right, by calling the investigations bureau at (805)494-8201.

My previous report is here, "MoveOn Finger-Biter Remains At-Large: Leftists Blame 'Anti-Reform' Forces for Violence."



The angle of the picture above looks similar to the shots taken by Karoli Kuns, who reported on the event here. As Kuns states, "I've given this report to the police along with my photos." However, from the start MoveOn impeded the investation with its dissemination of disinformation, and Kuns' allies have not given up the identification of the attacker to the authorities. Also, Kuns tweets that her photographs are appearing on CNN (so folks might keep checking back to her Twitter page for possible information on the whereabouts of the MoveOn perpetrator).



It turns out that doctors were not able to reattach William Rice's finger, "Healthcare-Reform Opponent Says Bit-Off Finger Could Not Be Re-Attached" (via Memeorandum). Here's a report from Fox News:

Meanwhile, Ian Gurvitz at Huffington Post is slurring concerned citizens as "monkey-shitters." See, "The GOP Strategy: Operation Monkeyshit":

The GOP's goal from the second the president took office was to bring him down. Their strategy: Operation Monkeyshit. Just like a monkey in the zoo will wildly fling his shit at tourists, the GOP started flinging their shit with the sole intention of diminishing the president's popularity, tarnishing his image, and hurting his brand, all to lay the groundwork for the 2010 midterms and 2012 presidential elections. Tea parties. "Mortgaging our children's future." "The TARP didn't work." "Death panels." "Killing grandma." Birthers. "He's going to take your guns and house terrorists in your neighborhood." "He's weakening the country." "He's going to give Bin Laden the keys to your city where he will take your job and sleep with your daughter."



Now it's the professional tailgaters in town halls holding Hitler signs, screaming about Fascism and Socialism -- as if they could either define those ideas, or spell them. It's Rove 101. Take your opponent's biggest strength and turn it into a weakness. John Kerry the veteran fabricated his injuries. Obama is Hitler.

I swear, everyday I'm more convinced that the left is in league with the devil. Not only are ObamaThugs, SEIU goons, and MoveOn finger-biters resorting to violence to turn back the conservative tide, they add insult to injury by slurring everyday Americans as ignorant racists and "monkey shitters" who can't spell.



God help this country.

MoveOn Finger-Biter Remains At-Large: Leftists Blame 'Anti-Reform' Forces for Violence

I attended the counterprotest to MoveOn.org's "candlelight vigil" in Irvine last night. There were two instances when MoveOn's ObamaCare thugs crossed the street to mix it up with the smaller group of conservative activists on the northwest corner. Leftist agitators have become even more aggressive of late. This heightened belligerence comes just as MoveOn and HCAN have been have been prepping their activists for confrontations and shout-downs. There's little doubt that the same context of leftist agitation and intimidation helps explain Wednesday's MoveOn finger-biting controversy at the "candlelight vigil" in Thousand Oaks.

The initial reports were a bit unclear as to the origins of the altercation, but MoveOn is claming to "condemn the violence" while its activist cadres are busy pinning blame on the "anti-reform" forces. One MoveOn activist, "Karoli" (who is Karoli Kuns), has written an eyewitness report and sent tweets in real time:

What's interesting to me is that most mainstream reports indicate that the MoveOn protester began a "verbal confrontation" with members of the conservative anti-ObamaCare demonstrators. And now, as the Los Angeles Times reports, police are still looking for the MoveOn finger-biter:

Authorities are searching for a healthcare reform activist today who they said bit off the finger of a 65-year-old counter-demonstrator during a fight at a MoveOn.org rally in Thousand Oaks.

There's a couple of troubling implications here for the MoveOn activists: First is that if Karoli Kuns' first-hand report is accurate, there should be additional eyewitness accounts supporting allegations that conservatives were aggressive and instigated violence against MoveOn demonstrators. Kuns has published a report, but her account is sketchy and her conclusions tentative.

More troubling is that if Kuns' story is correct, why hasn't the MoveOn finger-biter turned himself into the police? People don't usually evade the authorities unless they've got something to hide (or are in fact guilty of lawbreaking). Moreover, these MoveOn "candlelight" protests are social networking events. Participating activists are well-connected through online media and telecommunications. So why haven't the MoveOn people reported the name of the finger-biter to the police? Indeed, the word is out the MoveOn specifically spread disinformation initially to confuse the press and the authorities as to what really happened.

So, while the exact details and criminal ramifications are still being investigated, the event does remind us of the fact, as Ed Morrissey notes, "that most of the violence in these protests have come not from Tea Party activists or gun-carrying protesters, but from the counterprotesters from unions and left-wing groups."

Here's the video report, from Freedom's Lighthouse:

At the Precipice? What Happened to 'Comprehensive Health Care Reform'?

I'm intrigued by the increasing emphasis of the president and top members of his administration on "health insurance reform." Robert Gibbs, at the video, in an interview with Harry Smith on Face the Nation, concedes that Democrats are backing away from the "public option." Meanwhile, he hammers the point about passing "health insurance reform":

Yet, a look back at the administration's earlier language finds a much more sweeping agenda for "comprehensive reform." Here's the president, in his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24th, announcing the need to move this country forward:

None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward.

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance. It is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas. And it’s one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.

Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents work full-time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.

This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.

Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to achieve reform, and that is why I’m bringing together businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue next week.

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

The president speaks of "health care reform" and "comprehensive health care reform." The message isn't just reforming insurance markets; it's to "conquer disease" and find "a cure for cancer," to make the "largest investment in preventive care" and to bring "costs under control."

In June, in an address to the American Medical Association, the president announced his broad ambition that "health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health." The AMA speech marked the administration launch of the major legislative push for comprehensive reform.

By July, though, during his weekly radio address on health care, the president had begun to shift toward the "insurance reform" angle (after months of grass roots tea party activism). But he still implies grand designs in denouncing those attacking his program as socialist:

Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won’t get to choose your doctor – that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That’s also not true. Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.

Finally, opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That’s not true either. I don’t believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don’t think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please."

Yet, by yesterday, in Grand Junction, Obama was shifting gears, attacking insurance firms and markets. The president argued that Americans were being "held hostage by health insurance companies that deny them coverage, or drop their coverage, or charge fees that they can't afford for care that they desperately need."

Obama also backed away from the "robust public option" that's been a centerpiece of the plan:

The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it ... And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.

As we've seen all this weekend, now the administration's all about "health insurance reforms" that will provide "consumer choices" and "competition."

It's quite a dramatic change, rhetorically, and it shows the huge public scale of resistance to Obama's policy hubris. But I'm still not convinced the administration is defeated. Rick Moran argues that ObamaCare is on the "precipice of failure." But now with the new Democratic meme converging on "insurance co-ops," which will include "nonprofit insurance cooperatives," I'm again confident the left is practicing the classic Leninist strategy of one step backwards and two steps forward.

See also, Fox News, "Public Option Losing Steam? White House Open to Health Care Reform Without Government Plan." Also, check Memeorandum.

Conservatives: A Win on Public Option is One Battle on Road to Victory

Leftist Joe Sudbay is whining about how the White House, in "dropping" the public option, will "sacrifice good policy and principles for politics any day." Basically, another netroots radical takes issue with the administation for "blowing off" the party's socialist base.

Actually, I doubt the public option is indeed "off the table." The Politico has a report, "White House Backs Away From Public Health Care Option." But check Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, who nails what's really happening at this stage in Democratic-socialist healthcare reform:

To my fellow bloggers on the right,

This is NOT a victory ....

At best, we have won a skirmish - IF this is not smoke being blown by the Democrats smoke-blower-in-chief. (I am not convinced we have won even that much just yet.) Yes we have made a serious dent in their schemes, but we are not even close to being out of the woods on this yet.

We have a long way to go on this. Remember that Pelosi has already required that reconciliation be used - meaning that only 51 votes are needed in the Senate. Remember that there is a lot more to hate in these various bills being touted by the Democrats than just the public option.

If they get anything at all, they are looking at this as the camel’s nose under the tent. They will increment and “improve” anything they can get passed until it is socialized medicine. That is the ultimate goal. That is what Clinton pushed and that, very, very clearly, is the message of this article.

This is not a victory. We have to keep focused and keep fighting. We have to.

More at the link.