So this was interesting.

Anh “Joseph” Cao, certainly the furthest-left Republican in the House, who voted for ObamaCare, …eh, enough said. Having been elected in a heavily (and I mean heavily) Democratic district in NOLA, beating out ethically starved incumbent William Jefferson, John Boehner declared triumphantly at the time that “the future is Cao.” His election came a mere month after Mr. Obama’s being elected president, and while it was an important morale booster for Republicans at the time, nobody actually expected him to follow the voting pattern of Michele Bachmann.

Now, Barack Obama has not only endorsed Cao’s opponent, one Cedric Richmond (incidentally, also ethically starved), but has made Richmond’s campaign the recipient of Obama’s very first general election ad of the season. Curiouser and curiouser. The one Republican who Obama could conceivably endorse is the first incumbent Obama chooses to totally and ruthlessly, um, screw over.

I wonder, what’s the connection? Basketball buddies? Is he Reggie Love’s cousin? Or is he simply the best congressman for the people of Lousiana’s 2nd district as determined by the objective analysis of the Obama White House, whose primary concern this first week of October is the electoral representation of the people of Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district?

But of course, there’s the obvious: he’s black. In a black district, which is currently represented by some Asian who got there practically by accident anyway, right? Obama’s voice will go a long way here, considering his approval among blacks is still over 90%–and I’m guessing the other 10% are either the few-and-far-between Republicans or accidentally pressed the wrong button during the robo-call. His support among the demographic is solid.

I honestly can’t think of another explanation, other than they (the Obama White House) know they can sway the vast body of voters in LA-02 by having Obama simply tell them what to do (in one of the few districts where this might actually work), and every congressman helps. The Democratic majority could conceivably hinge on one or two representatives.

It’s just sad, though, that this is where it begins. There’s no other way around it: this is identity politics.

Read more on all things midterms at my blog.

Follow me: @

Of course we’re still in the “alleged” phase, but a few poignant questions do arise:

1. Does the media do a disservice to the military by highlighting stories like these (good TV), while as is often lamented, not bringing much attention to all the good being done in Iraq/Afghanistan/elsewhere (“boring” TV)?

2. How much does this jeopardize the Allied forces’ relationships with Afghan civilians?

3. Are statements like “this is just what happens in war” helpful or hurtful?

4. Obviously not all–or most–troops are like this. Obviously not all–or most–people are like this. Is it a byproduct of war, or is this guy (the alleged ringleader/what-have-you) simply a psychologically unredeemable murderer who just so happens to don a uniform?

The full story can be found here.

My all-too-brief quip on the ineptitude of the bureaucracy (and video embed) can be found here.

@

Fox News, as part of its “Florida Retiree Morning” series detailing endless cases of hummingbirds given priority over human safety, is making a big deal out of the Harris Neck story. It’s the case of a once “thriving” community (in one of the poorest counties in Georgia), whose landowners were kicked off their land during WWII to allow for the construction of an airstrip.

Several decades ago, it was converted into a National Wildlife Refuge*, despite supposed (but totally unsubstantiated) promises by the federal government to give the land back once the airstrips were no longer needed.

Many of the landowners were descendants of freed slaves, and were compensated on average only 72% of what their white counterparts received per acre.**

Now it’s time for some social justice.

First, let’s just take a few things into account. By my calculation, the youngest that any of these “usurped landowners” could possibly be is:

2010       (now)

-1942      (when the land was taken)

———

68

+18         (reasonable age for landownership)

———

86

Which suggests that there are few survivors at most, all of whom have made their homes for the past 68 years somewhere else. And despite the fact that land was taken from both whites and blacks, it’s become a case of “displaced black landowners”; so, naturally our friends at the NY Times and the AFL-CIO are coming to the rescue.

Once you research this issue, even a teensy-tiny bit, it sounds a lot like the case of the deeply questionable “black farmers” whom Shirley Sherrod helped to loot the federal treasury after feeling they were discriminated against by the USDA.

Harris Neck NWR is ultimately a similar story. The few landowners who actually survive and are pursuing justice–if any of them were even older than children in 1942–are looking for a freebie*** that no other victims of federal land-grabs got. Tennessee Valley Authority, anyone?

There are government-built dams literally everywhere in this country. Canals. Highways. Ports. Airstrips. All of which took vast amounts of land from landowners, some of which had been in families for generations. So why do the descendants of landowners in Harris Neck, Georgia, deserve reparations, while everyone else after 68 years, just has to suck it up and deal with it?

Hmm. Maybe they’re just looking for some sweet, racially-tinged social justice. Get Al Sharpton on the line, and Shirley Sherrod while you’re at it.

@ / Blog

—

*A shiny spot in an economically starved region: 90,000 annual visitors and pristine, accessible habitat for countless wetland species.

**Which the government blames on the value of the land, not race. Go figure.

***$400,000 worth of land and a government job. I’m not kidding, that’s what they’re gunning for.

This is a very common quip from those on the right, usually following any ruling involving something to do with gay rights*. And it’s a great case of crying wolf.

I was under the impression that by having three branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial, rights would thus be guaranteed and defended one way or another. If one branch overstepped its bounds, or in the infamous cases of institutional racial discrimination, for example, a branch or governmental institution never really came around to recognizing the rights of an entire class of citizens, that one of the branches would use its unique powers to extend/enumerate rights.

Now, I’m not one to say that a judge can decide flim-flam that because blacks were once enslaved, specific monetary reparations must now be payed out by whites; or that, because a church is excluded from most taxation, therefore it must conform to prevailing standards of social inclusion.

On the other hand, every time a ruling is found in favor of gays–from the seemingly harmless (a state government cannot discriminate solely on the basis of sexual orientation, along with disability, race, gender, veteran status, etc.) to the more controversial (marriage must be extended to gays because 1. they are legitimate couples and must be afforded the full rights associated with government-recognized marriage, and 2. there is no compelling legal argument to suggest they should not be afforded the right to marry)–the usual suspects claim judicial activism, or that California judges are writing laws/legislating from the bench.

No one on the right bats an eye when a city’s gun ban is overturned (nor should they); and few even protest injunctions against Phelps-types “protesting” at military funerals (nor should they in that case, either).

But gays shouldn’t be discriminated against in military recruitment? The right to civilly marry? Well, now the judges are opening the gates for free sex-change counseling in Kindergarten, and teaching boy scouts fisting!

…or, now the judges are legislating from the bench.

I believe that in the case of Prop. 8, it’s a bit disappointing that the state is not defending the law as vigorously as it can, because I believe in all cases (yes, even those involving accused terrorists!) there ought to be strong legal cases made by both parties.

But is finding that gays are discriminated against, when, well, they are: is that really legislating from the bench? Or are the critics applying their personal moral judgment of homosexuality to politics, and thus crying wolf?

Let’s just be careful in this distinction. Oftentimes, it’s all too predictable.

—

*Usually derisively referred to as gay “rights.”

@

Also posted at 20/10 Blog.

There are few sane voices out there right now concerning this candidacy.

If I were in a position where my voice carried weight, I would certainly caution–strongly–against going all-in on this candidacy. There’s a reason the heavyweights (save Mark Levin, alas) aren’t putting any stock in Christine O’Donnell, but there’s also a reason many grassroots conservatives are slowly and blindly lining up behind her, and it’s important to understand this phenomenon before it’s too late.

I’m guessing it’s that they sense a repeat of Alaska, or perhaps more aptly, Florida. But that’s not going to be the case: O’Donnell is a mix of J.D. Hayworth and Debra Medina–totally unreliable, flat out of her mind, a professional (yet tactless) politician, and someone who can really do a lot of damage to the wider credibility of the tea party movement.

Look, the “Tea Party Express” getting involved in the Alaska (and now the Delaware) race in the first place is questionable enough. Yet therein is the problem. There is now a presumed “default tea party candidate” in any race containing a pseudo-credible upstart against an incumbent; this is a mistake.

It goes without saying that Christine O’Donnell would not win in Delaware–she would get crushed by any generic Democratic campaign, without them even trying very hard. And, I know, Mike Castle is about on par with Olympia Snowe. I hate to support him, but I also hated having to quietly root for John McCain…yet I did anyway because I knew J.D. Hayworth was a total sleaze–not just a sleaze when it came to backstabbing Republicans and making policy “compromises.”

Let’s take a deep breath and keep electoral politics in perspective (it’s a numbers game, remember). If you want to put your stock into Christine O’Donnell, go right ahead. But I’m pulling against you, because she will 1. lose, and 2. do for the media exactly what they wanted Rand Paul and Sharron Angle to do (which never happened), and that is, obliterate the credibility of grassroots conservatives and the tea party.

Have at it, I guess.

@

Re-posted from my blog.

A drunk “social justice“ filmographer allegedly stabbed a NYC cab driver multiple times after asking “are you Muslim?” reports the NY Daily News.

He recently returned from filming in Afghanistan, and his group has actually endorsed the Park 51 Ground Zero mosque proposal.

The details, as reported by NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly (whom I once lived kitty-corner to, as a totally unrelated sidenote) are a bit unsettling, and maybe confusing. We’ll have to await further reports to draw a complete picture, but one thing’s clear: this guy exudes tolerance.

“As the cab was proceeding, the passenger asked, ‘Are you Muslim?’ and the driver said that he was,’” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters.

After his initial flurry of questions, Enright grew silent for several minutes before suddenly attacking the unsuspecting Sharif.

Just before Enright whipped out the knife from his multi-gadget Leatherman tool, he barked: “Al salaam aalaykum” – which means “Peace be upon you” in Arabic – Kelly said.

Enright also told the cabbie “This is a checkpoint,” an apparent reference to security screenings in Afghanistan, Kelly said. Enright reached through the partially open plastic barrier separating the front seat from the back in order to attack Sharif.

Sharif fought back and then stopped the cab at 43rd St. and Third Ave. – a bad break for Enright, because that’s where an NYPD cop was stationed, Kelly said.

I’ve got a couple of screen shots up here.

@

Praying & following very closely.

A Palin- and Paul-endorsee, Clint Didier is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge the incumbent U.S. Senator from Washington, Patty Murray. I say he’s got a real chance.

An interesting three-way interview with Ron Paul can be found here. Paul mentions some of the very recent primary victories for his own endorsees, referencing the “amazing political climate” this election year; Didier, like Ron’s son Rand, appears to have that broad “tea party” appeal to supporters of Sarah Palin and the Texas Congressman alike. There’s nothing to make me think he can’t pull off a primary victory and pose a serious challenge to Murray.

(Check out the conservative, Constitutional, ideas-driven candidate here.)

@/Also posted at my blog.

That seem to be the going meme in conservative circles since, oh, about yesterday. The Obama administration apparently thought they ought to apply the lesson of the Van Jones incident and “throw [X] under the bus before Glenn Beck plasters it on cable for 6 weeks” but they were wrong…now they (esp. their Secretary of Agriculture, who is incidentally a big ‘biofuels’ guy–but no matter) are looking like the idiots for firing Sherrod*, who it turns out saw the light on racial discrimination about 20 years ago.

I’m not sure that Andrew Breitbart really foresaw this going down this way–all indications are that he didn’t–but it’s looking like this may be one of his more brilliant moves after all, both for his business and his, let’s just say, anti-incumbent movement. The story has done a complete one-eighty, from “another reverse-racist official in the Obama administration!” to “Obama & co. have fired someone completely baselessly and inappropriately.”

As Hannity put it in his interview with Breitbart:

Now Sherrod claims she was taken out of context and had some harsh words for the Obama White House today saying her resignation was forced and came only after several harassing phone calls from an administration official.

But Tom Vilsack, secretary of Agriculture, is not backing down. He released another statement today saying, quote, “There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any active discrimination against any person.”

Now in addition we are getting word from a White House official that President Obama was briefed on the circumstances behind Sherrod’s removal and that he fully supports Secretary Vilsack’s decision.

This quickly became a lose-lose for the Obama administration. Or did it? Are they really that touchy about reverse-racial discrimination, especially now, after the whole Eric & the Ebony Kittens debacle? Is there indeed something uncouth going on in the Ag. Dept. that they don’t want getting out, and firing Sherrod* somehow seemed like the way to deflect? Are they finally removing some of the high-cost, low-productivity riffraff in the useless reaches of the bureaucracy?

Or is this just a case of some low-level 20-something in the White House who’s sworn in blood oath to hate Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin ’til the end of time (with the scars to prove it!) that got a little too jumpy at the first sign of this incident, picked up the phone and “pressured” Sherrod into resigning?

I’m guessing Vilsack’s actions (don’t count on the most transparent press secretary in the history of all history to provide any meaningful insight) will tell a whole lot in the coming days. We’ll see.

—

*Sorry. Make that “accepting Sherrod’s resignation.”

—

@/Re-posted from my blog.

I have to agree with Ken Connor here: Stossel is dead wrong. The Constitutional ideal simply cannot work without the accountability that the legal system affords claimants (and the defense in a given case, of course). One oft-presented example is that of pollution–without the ability of individuals or groups to bring a case against a polluter, we would have to rely solely on potentially outdated or corrupt regulations. Further, as Connor explains here,

The tort system promotes local control.  Through the jury system, people at the local level decide what is reasonable behavior within their own communities.  Ordinary citizens, applying a common sense standard of reasonable care, making decisions about acceptable and unacceptable conduct within their community – that is the essence of local government.  And, as a result of those decisions, suppliers of goods and services within the marketplace will often modify their own behaviors (i.e., improve health care standards, place guards on dangerous products, protect against discharge of toxic pollutants) without the necessity of yet another costly and intrusive governmental bureaucracy.

It is a fact: sometimes libertarians appear to be self-caricatures. They’ll oftentimes let their vision of American society be reduced to smoking bans or, in this case, “tort reform,” potentially missing the ‘bigger picture’ and further triangulating an otherwise serious political philosophy.

@/Blog