Conservatives Stand Up! — Zilla's Resistance Honor Roll Keeps Getting Bigger!

The freak leftist fascists are unrelenting, but again I'm overwhelmed by the awesome moral support I'm seeing across the blogosphere. So, here's a follow-up to my earlier entry, "Huge Shout Out to Ladd Ehlinger!"

Thanks again to Zilla, by the way. She had oral surgery the other day. But I got a tweet shortly thereafter, and she was doing fine! (And ICYMI, see "Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win.")

And well, before I forget, at word of thanks to SHOUT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER. The support is much appreciated.

Also at WyBlog, "Free Speech for thee but not for me?":

Donald was the first guy to link WyBlog, way back when I was starting out. And he got me hooked on Twitter too. He's a gentleman and a scholar; really. We don't always agree, but that's OK. Disagreeing without being disagreeable seems to be purely a right-wing / conservative trait. The politics of personal destruction was invented by the Left, and they're masters at it. Silence is Golden, unless it's their own shrill cacaphony which of course must be tolerated by all.

If Free Speech is to mean anything it absolutely must mean that the other guy has the inalienable right to say things you don't like. There is no right to not be offended. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Thanks Chris!

Also, check Bob Belvedere, "Right Wing Bloggers Under Relentless Attack: The Battle Rages On":

Donald, the man behind American Power, has been subject to efforts by these radicals to get him fired from his job as a college professor. He has posted a Roundup on Progressive Campaign of Workplace Intimidation and Harassment that I urge you to read all of, including the links, so that you can get a real understanding of th extent of these attempts to destroy this good man and hurt his family. What the Left is doing to him is but one instance of many that I fear will grow in number as the Progressives become more desperate. By having rejected tradition and morality and, thus, decency, the Left is free to achieve their end [the silencing of all opposition] by any means necessary. There is nothing to restrain them; God-like, they have given themselves license to do as they see fit.

And more, at Marooned in Marin, "Standing With a Fellow Blogger & Friend Against Vicious Attacks By Leftists":

Just as The Lonely Conservative writes here, I have also found it ironic how liberals, Leftists, whatever you want to call them, have always claimed to be such great champions of free speech and free expression. Yet when someone has a different point of view, the Left are always the first ones who try to obscure and censor differing opinions. We saw it during the Prop 8 campaign in California, where lists of people who donated to defend traditional marriage had their workplaces and or businesses distributed in order to punish and silence them.

There is nothing traditionally liberal about that. In fact, it is the totalitarian and fascistic face of the Left that has also existed in nations where Americans spilled their blood to defeat their tyrannical regimes. If you want to disagree with another point of view, fine. But when it comes to threatening one's livelihood, libeling critics, falsely accusing them of crimes, etc--that crosses a line. Not only that, it shows how these Leftists cannot support their own arguments, and must silence their dissenters by any means necessary. Which is the essence of totalitarianism.

It is for this purpose that I stand with my friend and fellow blogger against these attacks.

I'll continue updating.

Meanwhile, thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for linking some time back.

And Adrienne's Corner.

And Doug Ross.

And Invincible Armor.

And Right Wing News.

And That Mr. Guy.

And The Pagan Temple has a really interesting take on things, "Donald Douglas — Struck By The Poison Of Progressive Ideology."

BONUS: Maggie Thornton e-mailed a while back and I've been meaning to post her comments. I'll get to that over the next few days, and anyone else I might have missed.

Thanks again, everybody!

Dirty DUIs

A bizarre story, at LAT, "Coming Clean on 'Dirty DUIs' in Contra Costa County."

The Courtney Messerschmidt Scam

I've held off posting this. Last weekend brought the news that Courtney Messerschmidt is merely the front-woman with a fake name for a collective of writers at GSGF.

Thomas Ricks, who invested a lot in Courtney, wasn't too bothered by the outing: "pHoNy GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD." Neither was Crispin Burke at Wings Over Iraq.

I can't say the news didn't bother me, although I'd known for a long time that all was not right with Courtney Messerschmidt.

I got the news via Facebook, as did a number of people who Courtney'd been working with. I didn't quite understand it at first, because it wasn't a personalized note. Yeah, she confessed that she wasn't the primary author of GSGF, and that she hadn't attended the University of Georgia. But Courtney's been communicating with me since mid-2007. She'd write emails to wish me a good day at work, or to ask questions about neoconservatism. I considered her a friend and neocon protégé.

So I felt a real sense of betrayal. Indeed, Courtney and I exchanged hundreds of e-mails. She sent me this background in late 2007:

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:28 PM, Courtney Messerschmidt wrote:

Hi Donald,

Ok - whenever you start to zzzzz out, please remember that you asked.

My 'rents are very old. In fact I have nieces and nephews older than me. My mom taught college and my dad retired frm the AF and works at a world famous aeronautical firm near Atlanta. He says he'll know when he gets to retire from that depending on what school I go to. One of my brother in laws is a Capt in 'Old Ironsides' - America's Armor division. He was an LT in Najaf I think in Aug 2003 when Mookie Al Sadr's Mahdih Army v1.0 was granted access to the perfumed halls of Allah.

When all my friends plowed through Paris' heiress book - I was plowing through Dennis Ross' "Missing Peace", Bodansky's "High Cost of Peace" and "Beyond Paradise and Power" by Ischinger, Fukyama, Applebaum and others, Michael Oren's "6 days of war". Alexander Bevin's "How America got it right' and Larry Schwiekert's "America's Victories" are essntial reading.

I have widely traveled throughout Europe including Ireland, Great Britain, France, Benelux, Deutschland, Czech repub, Italy, Greece and Belgium. In The ME I've been to Israel, Egypt and Turkey. In March 2002 me and some friends almost singlehandedly crashed HAMAS's condolences site for suicide bombers and their family after the Seder massacre. Hasn't been up since..

Being blessed with an unusual last name helped drive me towards history. Having to drive through multiple civil war battlefields to get any where tended to fuel my curiousity.

911 was a big influenece as I remember sitting on the floor at home eating my Captain Crunch Berries when that couple held hands and jumped from the 70th floor of the WTC. Just then the avuncular Peter Jennings cut to their man in Gaza. THere they were. Having a great old time - passing out laffy taffy with that demonic cry Alluha Ackbah. "I only wish that Bush was in those towers with his precious baby Sharon" is what one woman alledgedly said.

I was trapped at home one summer with my dads immense library. New books like James Spahns 'Rise of the Vulcans' and old ones Gary Dorrein's "Imperial Designs" or Robert Kagan's "Paradise and Power' had an effect - The more I studied American History the more convinced I became that America "...ain't what's wrong with the world..." I saw Victor Davis Hanson on Britt Hume's show back around Xmas 2001. I've been hooked every since.

Ivo Daalder's book "America Unbound" is crucial - though not the reasons Daalder would hope for. He kinda wails that 'Merica can do whatever she dang well pleases - unbound by the UN, the EU, NATO, OPEC, OAS, G7's and G8's. I love that!

Curently, my life is so controlled - do this, don't do that so I started my own blog. Mainly because I was sick of people saying the American military was broken, Iraq is a quagmire etc. A random reading of American history shows that is so incorrect - it's either stupid or weirdly unAmerican. Places I went to began to block me from challenging their inappropiate, weak, boring and incorrect handwringing. Empowerment I reckon. Also like Gollum says to Smeagul in "2 Towers" - "Now we be the master!"

I want to work on grand strategy like Dr Posen's but since I have no PHD's or Pulitzer prizes behind my name it may take a while.

I'vr been meaninig to raise this subject with you and now I shall.

Redefinition. The term Neo Con is so misunderstood, so falsely painted that it may be time for a new term to describe that especial perspective. Since Posen himself espoused neo conish views as a fait accompli in FP circles that can be used to our advantage. As far as a new name - I'm leaning towards New Millenialism myself.
Redefinition will be critical in the near future.

Example - Islamo Fascism is out (regardless of what Hitchens says). Mohammedism should be the new term.Tough for critics to cry about that term - after all Mohammed was a fighting, conquering, ruthless, merciless intolerant dictator.

Wow - didn't mean to ramble but remember you did ask. Now how about a bit of reciprication?

I appreciate you sharing your time and ideas with me - spiritually we are very close.

As Fisher said to Churchill,

"yours til charcoal sprouts",

Courtney

Last weekend I asked Courtney to confirm four questions:

You are a genuine neocon, right? I believe you are and that our communications on that were genuine.

And the picture of you is genuine, right?

What about your 'rents? Is the stuff you told me about your parents and family true? The military background of your brothers? And so forth. That's all true, right?

And did you write the majority of posts at GSGF, and I mean at least more than half? Or about what percentage?

The only thing she would confirm on record was that she is indeed a hardcore neoconservative. The remaining questions she fudged or ignored. She wouldn't give me a straight answer on the percentage of her self-authored posts at GSGF and she ignored my questions about her personal background. I finally wrote back to say that we were no longer friends.

Courtney's maintained her Facebook page, although she's removed all the pictures of herself. She'd sent me some by e-mail, like the one above. And since she says that Courtney is her real first name, it's likely that the personal pictures are genuine and she's scrubbed them to protect her identity from the inevitable harm to her reputation, should she move on from anonymous blogging to the real world of college and employment.

John Hawkins, unlike some of the others, severed ties with her: "The Courtney Messerschmidt Controversy."

Courtney still publishes at Theo Spark's, where I am a co-blogger, so I may have some peripheral interactions with her in that role. But that's it. Folks get the real me online, through blogging and social networking, email, etc. I expect the same in return, as just the decent thing to do.

The Beauty of Moral Excellence

Peter Wehner has an interesting piece, at Commentary, "Our Lack of Moral Vocabulary":

Earlier this week, David Brooks wrote a fascinating column on young people’s moral lives, basing it on hundreds of in-depth interviews with young adults across America conducted by the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith and his team.

The results, according to Brooks, were “depressing” — not so much because of how they lived but because of “how bad they are at thinking and talking about moral issues.” Asked open-ended questions about right and wrong, moral dilemmas and the meaning of life, what we find is “young people groping to say anything sensible on these matters. But they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary to do so.” What Smith and his team found is an atmosphere of “extreme moral individualism — of relativism and nonjudgmentalism.” The reason, in part, is because they have not been given the resources — by schools, institutions and families — to “cultivate their moral intuitions, to think more broadly about moral obligations, to check behaviors that may be degrading.”

This is part of a generations-long phenomenon. In his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom wrote, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” And the university, Bloom argued, is unwilling to offer a distinctive visage to young people. The guiding philosophy of the academy is there are no first principles, no coherent ways to interpret the world in which we live.

But this is merely a pose. No one, not even a liberal academic, is a true relativist. Scratch below the surface and you’ll find them to be (morally) judgmental toward those who want to discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. They will likely have strong (moral) views on criminalizing abortion, restricting marriage to one man and one woman, anthropogenic global warming, water-boarding terrorists, rendition, Israeli settlements, profits for oil companies, and cutting taxes for the rich. The left is adamant: women have a “right” to an abortion and gays have a “right” to marry. These rights are viewed as a priori and inviolate. And no one, not even a progressive liberal arts professor, is morally indifferent to someone who wants to rape his wife, molest his children, and steal his iPad. It is fashionable to insist we don’t want to “impose our values” on others or “legislate morality.” But the reality is we do so all the time, on an endless number of issues, and no civilization could survive without doing so. The question, really, is which moral standards do we aspire to? What is the ethical code we use to judge ourselves and others?

Keep reading, and note:

One final thought: what is often lost in this debate is that human fulfillment and happiness isn’t found in a world stripped of moral beliefs. Despair, not joy, is found among those who believe in nothing, who find purpose in nothing, who fight for nothing. Because of human anthropology – because we are moral creatures, made in the image of God – we are meant to delight in His ways, to live lives of high moral purpose. All of us fail more often than we should. But we cannot give up on the aspiration; nor can we allow our hearts to grow cold and indifferent, unmoved by the beauty of moral excellence.

But check Brooks' essay, which strikes a chord with my experience. I do think young people are deeply moral, but they lack an expressive vocabulary to articulate these beliefs in the public realm.

Furor Over Paul Krugman's 9/11 Blog Post

From the letters to the editors, at New York Times:

To the Editor:

Re “The Years of Shame” (“The Conscience of a Liberal” blog, The New York Times on the Web, Sept. 11):

Paul Krugman writes, “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.” I disagree.

I feel no shame about my personal recollections and commemorations of 9/11. My memories of the day have not faded; I recall what I saw with my own eyes in Lower Manhattan. I do not believe that our political system was irrevocably poisoned, or that it is a day of shame.

I remain grateful for the words of comfort that President George W. Bush and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani provided the nation in the aftermath.

I find no shame in the pursuit of justice since then by two presidential administrations. I may not agree with every policy decision taken since, but American society is sound and our recollections have not been hijacked.

I urge Mr. Krugman to appreciate moments of great leadership, regardless of the leader’s political affiliation.

MICHAEL METS
Glendale, Queens, Sept. 11, 2011

There are two more letters at that link.

James Taranto has commentary, "History's Smallest Monster." And Michelle felt obligated to respond: "A few more words about Koward Krugman."

And at Mediaite, "Megyn Kelly Hosts Fiery Debate Over Paul Krugman’s ‘Years Of Shame’ 9/11 Column." (Click through to watch. Megyn interviews Medea Benjamin, who is completely down with Krugman's desecration, naturally.)

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cancelled his subscription to the Times in protest: "Donald Rumsfeld cancels New York Times subscription." And "Rumsfeld Decides to “Go Timesless”."

Paul Krugman responded to the criticism (doubled-down), "More About the 9/11 Anniversary."

Turning Conservative After September 11, 2001

I've mentioned it a few times in the past. It was actually the left's reaction to the Bush administration and the Iraq war that made me realize I was conservative. In fact, I realized it on the morning of March 19th, 2003, when I spoke at a campus panel on the war. I didn't feel at home. I was surrounded by bloodthirsty leftists, students and professors, who looked like they had vengeance in their eyes. I went home that night and had dinner with my family, and I remember President Bush coming on the air to announce that combat operations had begun in Iraq. My political beliefs have never been the same. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I still thought the Democratic Party was the party of Truman and Kennedy. How naive I must have been. But my vision has become clearer every year since then.

The annual debate over the September 11th attacks always reminds me of my political transformation. By now it's safe to say that 9/11 and the Iraq war have merged in my consciousness, although it wasn't always so. It took me a couple of years to understand the partisan divide in America, that one side stands for old-time values, love of country, individualism and sacrifice. The other side stands for ideological intolerance, anti-Americanism, and appeasement toward the forces of evil in the world. It's a stark difference that took stark historical events to congeal for me personally.

I'm reminded of this by some of the comments at my post from yesterday, "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11." I wrote at the conclusion there: "For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative." And my good friend Kenneth Davenport dropped by to comment, responding in particular to my conclusion:

I haven't thought about it in this way before, but I've certainly become more conservative in response to the painful nihilism that regularly comes from the left. I live in a different world than they do, and there really are no areas of common ground. That's the truth. They see America as a flawed nation which should apologize for itself at every turn and which deserved the attacks of 9/11. And I see America as the last best hope of earth, a place of unbounded fairness and generosity, forged in the belief that the individual -- and not government -- is sovereign. There is no reconciling these two different belief systems. So I don't try. Instead, I surround myself with good people who share my values and who give thanks every day that there are those who are willing to sacrifice everything for our survival as a nation.

That's so well-said, and reaffirming. And Ken's posted a photo-essay from yesterday as well, where he demonstrates his love of country and appreciation of sacrifice: "9/11 on the USS Midway."

Now remember that it was Paul Krugman who got me going yesterday, and it turns out Glenn Reynolds received a load of comments about that. See, "EVERYBODY’S ANGRY, to judge from my email, about Paul Krugman’s typo-burdened 9/11 screed":

Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had. Thus, he tries to piss all over the people he’s always hated and envied. No surprise there. But no importance, either. You’ll see more and worse from Krugman and his ilk as the left nationally undergoes the kind of crackup it’s already experiencing in Wisconsin. They thought Barack Obama was going to bring back the glory days of liberal hegemony in politics, but it turned out he was their Ghost Dance, their Bear Shirt, a mystically believed-in totem that lacked the power to reverse their onrushing decline, no matter what the shamans claimed.

I'm not angry, as much as continually shocked at the brazen progressive hatred. It forces me to look inward, to my values and beliefs, and to history and national purpose. But sticking with the theme here, recall the essay from Cinnamon Stillwell in 2005, "The Making of a 9/11 Republican":

I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

PROTO CREDIT: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

9/11: Radical Islamists Burn U.S. Flag in London Protest (VIDEO)

From Telegraph UK:

And from London's Daily Mail, "100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London during minute's silence for 9/11."

RELATED: "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11."

Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11

I long ago lost any respect I had for Paul Krugman. I read Krugman's scholarly work back in the mid-1990s. He was a reasonable voice for American economic competitiveness, and his work was at the leading edge of strategic trade theory. But upon becoming a New York Times columnist he found his calling as a celebrity mouthpiece for the most inane progressive ramblings in American politics. Beclowning himself in that role would be putting it mildly. He probably should have just taken the day off from blogging today, but he couldn't resist fouling himself, wrapping himself in progressive toxicity. Linkmaster Smith has the essay screencapped, and can't bring himself to even comment on the depravity: "I really can’t comment on this in any family-friendly way." Plus, more from Dana Pico: "And Paul Krugman truly does define The Conscience of a Liberal," and Lonely Conservative: "Paul Krugman is Deranged." And check Althouse, who slams Krugman for his cowardice at closing his post to comments.

There's a Memeorandum thread. And checking the progressive entries we see the left's shame piling up like a heap of dung.

Here's idiot progressive Blue Texan, at Firedoglake, "Krugman is Right: We Should Be Ashamed of What Happened after 9/11."

Is anyone proud, 10 years later, that we’re still losing lives in Afghanistan?

Of course, you dolt. People are proud of the sacrifice and valor that's helped to make this country safer. Shame on you.

And Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla can't take a moment to even honor the dead:

I’m not watching any of this “commemorative” crap today (thank God for cable!) and I’m certainly not writing about it today.

Shame on you, Susie. The attacks of 9/11 killed indiscriminately, killing those of all creeds and colors. At least have the decency to honor the dead.

At read the comment thread at Washington Monthly, where for the rare wayward commenter, you've got steady serving of hate-filled progressive gruel:

Krugman sums up my feelings exactly.

They once again came to the surface for me while I watched GDumbya read a letter from President Lincoln during the ceremony in NYC this morning.

Although 9/11 was a tragic autrocity [sic], the real tragedy is that we allowed an incompetent, out-of-control administration lead us down a rat-hole in the Middle East and consequently lose our national soul, our treasure, countless lives, our reputation, our integrity and our influence in the world.

I often wonder how different our present circumstance would be if the Supreme Court had not appointed Bush as president in 2001.

(Recall Daniel Henninger nailed progressies on this, arguing that the left's desecration of goodness preceded 9/11, going back to the Florida recount and the GOP's victory in Bush v. Gore. See: "America's Broken Unity After 9/11.")

And then check Prairie Weather, "A growing consensus about post-9/11":

Maybe an important aspect of the great divide in America is the difference between those Americans who are able to feel shame and willing to make genuine apologies, and those who can't admit to shame and toss off self-justification as a cheap plastic substitute for remorse.

I'm confounded on the one hand and enraged on the other. What apologies are necessary here? I mean, seriously. Doesn't Prairie Weather sum up everything that conservatives have been combating here at home since the early days of the war on terror, such as the progressive war on Bush's domestic and foreign security policies? Since September 11th we've seen the left's long train of shame. Recall the radical left's rank political opportunism in opposing the Iraq war, demonically, of course, since the Democrat Party in Congress --- the party of defeat --- turned against our troops after authorizing their deployment, to excoriate the mission, and declare repeatedly that Iraq was lost and that we should turn tail in an ignominious cut-and-run. And we had years of Bush derangement syndrome, which then transmogrified into putrid Palin derangement syndrome, all combined into a program of partisan political destruction that's done nothing but weaken American security by successfully terminating programs such as wiretapping that were keeping Americans safe. A decade's shame of appeasement and partisan abomination is frothing to a head in the left's responses to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative.

Michael Coren Loves Zionism!

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Baby Tossed From Parking Structure Dies: Mother Sonia Hermosillo, Charged With Attempted Murder, Got Parking Validation After Alleged Crime

At LAT, "Baby dropped from parking structure dies."

Also, "Mom got parking validated after baby allegedly dropped from garage," and "Mother suspected of throwing baby from garage was 'calm, stoic,' police say."

Conditional Pregnancy

I have a lot of pro-choice women in my classes, so this story just seems so foreboding. DNA tests can now determine the sex of the child at 7 weeks, so it's quite easy for a pregnant mom to decide to abort. Audrey Chapman, a health bioethicist cited at the piece, says this:

“I think over the long run this has the potential of changing attitudes toward pregnancy and to family” ... “Women may be less invested in their pregnancies earlier than they are later, and the question has been raised whether women will look at their pregnancies increasingly as being conditional: ‘I will keep this pregnancy only if.’ ”

Read it all at New York Times, "If You Really, Really Wanted a Girl ..."

BWAHAHA!! Paul Campos, Law Professor and Asshat Blogger at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Outed as 'ScamProf'

At left, freakin' asshat Law Professor and LGM blogger Paul Campos, a.k.a ScamProf.



******



See The Tax Prof, "Anonymous Law Prof Behind Law School Scam Blog Outs Himself: Paul Campos."



And here's this, from Brian Lieter, "Update on ScamProf":

ScamProf is the failed academic who has done almost no scholarly work in the last decade, teaches the same courses and seminars year in and year out, and spends his time trying to attract public attention, sometimes under his own name, this time anonymously. These are important facts about ScamProf, since he is indeed scamming his students and his state, and his initial posts were tantamount to a confession that he's not doing his job. His colleagues, in any case, now know who he is, and are quite understandably angry, since the reckless generalizations are naturally read as commentary on them. After we called him out Monday, ScamProf pulled back a bit, and switched gears and stopped projecting his own failures on to all his professional colleagues and started actually writing about the economics of legal education...

OMG, that is harsh! Couldn't have happened to more dickish guy. Shoot, those assholes at Lawyers, Guns and Money are busting the balls off the epic dick-meter scale! Keep it up guys! And stay classy, ROTFLMFAO!!



The Tax Prof has a little roundup, and check the comments at Althouse, "'Anonymous Law Prof Behind Law School Scam Blog Outs Himself: Paul Campos'."

The Two Minus One Pregnancy

I saw this at New York Times last week.

For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma. As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want.



Jenny’s decision to reduce twins to a single fetus was never really in doubt. The idea of managing two infants at this point in her life terrified her. She and her husband already had grade-school-age children, and she took pride in being a good mother. She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love. Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent. “This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,” she told me, referring to the reduction. She and her husband worked out this moral calculation on their own, and they intend to never tell anyone about it. Jenny is certain that no one, not even her closest friends, would understand, and she doesn’t want to be the object of their curiosity or feel the sting of their judgment.



This secrecy is common among women undergoing reduction to a singleton. Doctors who perform the procedure, aware of the stigma, tell patients to be cautious about revealing their decision. (All but one of the patients I spoke with insisted on anonymity.) Some patients are so afraid of being treated with disdain that they withhold this information from the obstetrician who will deliver their child.

Of course they can't tell anyone. What they've done is an abomination. There's more at that link above, but I'm reminded of the story by David French, at National Review, "‘Selective Reduction’ and Self-Indulgence."

Michelle Malkin: 'Smacking Down Progressives of Pallor'

A superb beating.



Head over there and read the whole thing:

Video c/o The Other McCain, "I Would Very Much Like to Say That Janeane Garofalo Has Lost Her Mind …"

The New Britannia

From Mark Steyn, at National Review:

The trick in this business is not to be right too early. A week ago I released my new book — the usual doom’n’gloom stuff — and, just as the sensible prudent moderate chaps were about to dismiss it as hysterical and alarmist, Standard & Poor’s went and downgraded the United States from its AAA rating for the first time in history. Obligingly enough they downgraded it to AA+, which happens to be the initials of my book: After America. Okay, there’s not a lot of “+” in that, but you can’t have everything.



But the news cycle moves on, and a day or two later, the news shows were filled with scenes of London ablaze, as gangs of feral youths trashed and looted their own neighborhoods. Several readers wrote to taunt me for not having anything to say on the London riots. As it happens, Chapter Five of my book is called “The New Britannia: The Depraved City.” You have to get up pretty early in the morning to beat me to Western civilization’s descent into barbarism. Anyone who’s read it will fully understand what’s happening on the streets of London. The downgrade and the riots are part of the same story: Big Government debauches not only a nation’s finances but its human capital, too.

Keep reading.



It's really astounding, the prophecy in that book. Don't miss it.

Rioters to Be Stripped of State Benefits in Britain's Online Petition

At Telegraph UK, "UK riots: we will make criminals suffer, say MPs." Also, at Montreal Gazette, "Britons call for looters to lose benefits":

And at London's Daily Mail, "Rioter's family is first to be kicked out of their council house because of teenage son's 'looting'."

UK Riots: Young Yobs Back on Streets Despite David Cameron's Pledge

At Telegraph UK (via Theo Spark).

Belladonna Rogers: 'Conservatives and Gay Marriage'

The piece is from a couple of weeks ago, and it's very well done, "Conservatives and Gay Marriage: A Guide for the Perplexed." That said, a lot of this is straw man argumentation, with a bit of hopeless defeatism thrown in. Also interesting is her endorsement of Jennifer Chrisler, of Family Equality Council. She's articulate and attractive, and has honed fear-calming to high art. Yet as I pointed out yesterday, these "nice" people are hunkered down inside the Trojan horse driving a radical LGBT agenda that would horrify a majority of Americans if the truth were known. It turns out Chrisler's spouse is Cheryl Jacques, the former Executive Director of Human Rights Campaign, the extremist gay rights organization that rejects the morality and goodness of a majority of the American people. Here's an interesting tidbit from the comments at Popehat:

The radical LBGT agenda is best defined by such a person as President Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings program intended to sexualize school chidren. Kevin Jennings agenda would be held in high regard by the NAMBLA pedophiles. Closer to home Scott Brown replaced Lesbian Senator Cheryl Jacques who went to Washington to head up the LBGT Human Rights Campaign. The mission of the Human Rights campaign is to ram gay rights down the throat of the American people. Scott Brown in turn defeated Cheryl Jacques chief of staff Chief of Staff, and openly homosexual Angus, McQuilken. He is also the Chief of Staff of Planned Partenhood League of Mass. Funny how much of this ties together. I believe that we may be on the eve of a new revolution.

Chrisler's spouse is also discussed here: "The FISTGATE Report." No one is saying gays can't make a family. It's a lie though to entertain the notion the gay family values are mainstream. They're not. And gays activists must use subterfuge and thuggery to ram that agenda home.

Related: At Nampion, "Please Don’t Hurt The Gerbil – New And Improved 2011 Version."

Joseph Fein Defends Pamela Geller

My friend Joseph Fein, who regrettably I haven't linked here in a while, made a very shrewd argument the other day in his post standing up for Pamela Geller, "History Will Look Kindly on Pamela Geller Not Glenn Greenwald." I'm not so focused on the commentary on Glenn Greenwald, who while I've slammed mercilessly in the past (he's a genuine asshole, frankly), I've also commended him for avoiding the herd Obama cult mentality (I recognize consistency when I see it). What caught my eye about Joseph's essay was this passage on ideological rationalization:

Glenn Greenwald wanted Gay marriage to be the norm in the United States. As a Social libertarian, I see no issue here. As a partisan, I see a weak person who won't even stay in his own country and fight for what he believes in. He expects others to do the heavy lifting. Speaking to partisans who think the same way you do on TV, radio and the Internet does not expand converts. (nor does sock-puppeting).



I voted No on 8; I support any two consenting adults to be happy. But every time Andrew Sullivan attacks Palin's family, I always have to rethink that vote.



Now, compare Greenwald to Pam Geller.

I've highlighted in bold the key sentence, but check the whole post for the context. I'd have to talk to Joseph in person to see how he'd vote on a gay marriage proposition next time around (if it's not decided at the U.S. Supreme Court beforehand), but the key is that Joseph would consider changing his position because of the ideological and political violence of the progressive left's pro-gay marriage ayatollahs. I cringed the other day when Andrew Breitbart announced he'd boycott CPAC over the organization's exclusion of GOProud. It's not so much that GOProud is either in or out at CPAC (I think the group's a Trojan horse but I'd let them compete in the marketplace of ideas rather than exclude them). It's that for all of Andrew Breitbart's super aggressive battles against the institutional left, he obviously doesn't get it on this issue. My sense is that he's got friends who are gay. Fine. So do I. But that doesn't mean one has to capitulate to the progressive barebacking agenda. It's bears repeating and repeating again: Gay activists are the most venal, vicious, and unprincipled political organizers going. It's like Rick Santorum noted the other day, when he suggested that gays enjoy "super rights." Progressive gay activists are the left's ultimate bullies. They are in your face, attacking anyone with the slightest inclination toward tradition as a "homophobe" and "racist." They browbeat, intimidate, and harass to get their way. They've threatened to destroy livelihoods over the simple act of voting on a proposition. They's lied and cheated in public forums, for example, with the mock judicial process that reviewed Prop. 8 in Federal District Court. Basically, they've raped the political process to leverage a disgusting and morally reprobate barebacking, rim-station sexual agenda that majorities of voters have consistently rejected nationwide. Fully thirty states continue to prohibit gay marriage across the country, but the tentacles of deathly progressivism have worked their subterfuge in the more left-leaning states, using all manner of deceit and duplicity to carry the day. Most of all is the sickening progressive discrimination that is the centerpiece of folks like the disgusting perv Dan Savage. I wrote recently on his sick bigotry and hatred of regular people: "Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists." The gay progressive program of ideological bigotry works because society has been beaten down by political correctness. No one wants to appear intolerant. No one wants to be attacked as anti "civil rights." The problem of course, is that gay marriage isn't a civil right, although regular people have been so brainwashed by progressive Orwellianism they don't know what is good and moral, and to even speak up for something decent is to be viciously attacked, with people's very lives being threatened. So this is why I think Joseph's rethinking of his vote on Prop. 8 is such an incisive opening on this issue. If it were me I'd leave it to the states, and if the voters choose full gay marriage rights so be it. But the process is hijacked by extremists and thugs, and it's not likely those rights would come around through a free and fair democratic process. And thus those folks so happy to call themselves libertarian on the issue just end up being fellow soldiers in the left's campaign to destroy decency in this country.

Update: After Leiby Kletzky Murder

A follow-up to "Reassessment After Leiby Kletzky Murder."

From Neo-Neocon, at Pajamas Media, "In Kletzky Killing’s Wake, We Can’t Lock Up Our Kids."

Great essay. Very reasonable. But again, I'm not sure reason returns very quickly after something so shocking. I don't think folks need to "lock up" their kids. I think we should all be more careful. That mother in Pico Rivera let her child, 6-years-old, go the restroom alone in a public park. My wife spoke about it at the time as something we'd never do. Rape is unconscionable, but the child is alive. Eight-year-old Leiby's forever gone from this world. His mother is gripped with guilt. I feel bad for her. I don't think she made a mistake. She's the mother. She would know her own child's ability. But as I noted already, my youngest boy wouldn't be ready for a 7-block walk all alone. It's not like he'd have a problem walking home. It's that he'd be distracted somehow and lose focus on the mission. He'd dawdle perhaps. He'd get absent-minded. He's got attention deficits. I don't know. But we're not at the trusting stage yet. Call me overprotective. That's fine. My son's well-adjusted and safely snug in his bed. But each child is different. My older son has all kinds of autonomy. But we still worry sometimes.

God bless the Kletzky family. I hope they're coping well. It's so sad.

Pat Austin has some comments on the case as well.

See also New York Daily News, "Leiby Kletzky died fighting for life: Confessed killer Levi Aron has marks indicating a 'struggle'."