John Yoo’s perspective on Marin’s GroupaPalooza

by 3 Comments

I attended the Marin GroupaPalooza, and did a tongue in cheek blog post here, imagining how a Progressive would have perceived the event.  John Yoo has just published his take on the event, which is straightforward and clear — and nicely rebuts Obama’s (and the rest of the Left’s) paranoid fantasies about the event.  I think you’ll find Yoo’s post interesting.

A couple more related points:

First, on the subject of denigrating the Tea Partiers, Stanley Fish, writing at the NYT, urges liberals not to make the mistake of doing so.  After eight paragraphs of compelling arguments urging that the Tea Partiers be treated with dignity even as the Left opposes them, Fish wraps up his article with some rousing paragraphs that . . . yes, you know where this is going . . . insult the Tea Partiers.  Honest to God, they just can’t help themselves.

Second, did I tell you what happened when I saw my liberal friend, the same one who castigated me for attending Tea Party gatherings because they are nothing more than Koch-funded, racist orgies (conducted in code, of course)?

Well, when I saw him, he asked, “How was it?”

I have to admit here that I’m not a very nice person, because I could not resist the impulse to yank his chain.  In breathless tones, therefore, I replied, “It was awful.  It was a bloodbath.”

“What happened?!”

“Well, when Ward Connerly got up to speak, people started pelting him with eggs and hollering the N word.  It was really ugly.”

My friend couldn’t help himself:  “They didn’t!”

To his credit, he framed that last one as a negative, meaning that even he couldn’t believe what I told him — yet he must have believed it just a little bit, or he would have realized instantly that I was pulling his leg, making his horrified exclamation unnecessary.  It says something that he could even entertain the possibility that I might be saying that Ward Connerly, a conservative invited to speak at a conservative gathering, would be subject to that kind of treatment.

Bias and research results

by 3 Comments

Earlier today, I blogged about the problem of sourcing material:  information is only as good as the publisher’s knowledge and honesty.  It appears that Elizabeth Warren, whom Obama unilaterally (that is, without Congressional oversight) appointed to meddle in consumer financing, is guilty of letting ideology corrupt research.  I wouldn’t doubt it.  As you all know, I don’t like her, going back to my time as a student suffering her incoherent teaching.

Looking into the crystal ball to determine how Obama will act after the midterms *UPDATED*

by 19 Comments

I’ve heard from various people that, once the midterm elections are over, with the only real questions being (1) whether the Republicans also take the Senate and (2) by how much they take the House, Obama will change his tune.  After all, Bill Clinton did, and he emerged from the debacle strong enough to retake the White House in 1996.

I am absolutely certain that Obama will not change his tune.  If there was a betting office for these things, I’d actually put money on my certainty.  (That tells you how certain I am, ’cause I never gamble.)

My conviction about Obama’s rigidity is rooted in the nature of Obama’s narcissism.  Clinton was also a narcissist, but of a very different stripe.

Here’s the deal:  narcissists are people who have black holes where their egos should be.  Whether because of nature or nurture, they do not have a healthy self-identity.  They are able to create a self-identity only by reference to those around them.

There are two pathways for a narcissist to choose.  The first is the Clinton pathway, which is to work hard to make everyone like you.  If you do that, you are constantly proving to yourself what a great guy you are, because everyone likes you.  This is why Clinton, despite his many, many, many personal issues is such a charming, likable human being.  (It also explains his obsessive womanizing, because each woman who falls in his arms helps reaffirm his sense of his own attraction.)  When this person is faced with a wall of dislike, such as the 1994 mid-term elections, he will immediately switch tactics so that he can feel the love again.

The second narcissistic pathway is to elevate yourself by denigrating others.  This is entirely distinct from the “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me,” approach, which is aimed at building oneself up.  (And yes, I know that Al Franken is also a malignant narcissist, but it’s still a great line.)  This second type of narcissist doesn’t praise himself, he demeans others.  It goes along these lines:  “I know I must be handsome, because he’s ugly.  I know I must be smart, because he’s stupid.  I know I must be competent, because he’s incompetent.”  This second narcissist also tries to surround himself with people who will reflect well on him.  “People will know I’m successful because my wife is beautiful.  People will know I’m smart because I hang out with college professors.”

This tactic, by which the narcissist tries to use the presence of superior people, and an obsessive focus on their real or imagined shortcomings, the yardstick for measuring happiness never works.  As the old saying goes, “wherever you go, there you are.”  Because the narcissist has a gaping hole where a healthy ego is, no matter how he surrounds himself with successful, attractive people, all the while being sure to denigrate him so that he retains some personal altitude, he’s always unhappy.  And all he knows how to do is more of the same:  He surrounds himself by smarter, more beautiful people, whom he must demean so that he can bob along above them.

That’s Obama.  That’s Mrs. Obama too, which is why these two, having reached the pinnacle of world success, look so miserable.

Assuming I’m correct about Obama’s borderline personality disorder, it’s fairly easy to predict that, after the devastation of the coming elections, he will double down on his policies, rather than accommodating the new, very powerful opposition.  He cannot acknowledge that change is necessary, because the fault isn’t his; it’s everyone else’s.

I warned in 2007 about the danger of electing a malignant narcissist of Obama’s cut to the highest office in the world.  When it comes to the ordinary “us versus them” of politics, Obama transcends even “progressive v. conservative,” and transforms it into “me v. everyone else.”

John Yoo, at the GroupaPalooza I attended, mentioned that Obama has his constitutional duties bass ackwards.  In the past 20 months, with his own party in charge, and with his manifest dislike for America, he’s been too strong at home, where he is supposed to act as a brake on Congress, and too weak abroad, where he should be a powerful commander in chief.  Beginning in 2011, I predict that Obama will suddenly see the light regarding his constitutional responsibilities at home.  Faced with a Republican Congress, rather than sensibly bending to the people’s will, he will use the veto like a cudgel, blocking conservative initiatives at every turn.

Obama’s probable intransigence means that the damage already in place won’t be stopped.  The best that can be done is to prevent further damage.  The good news, though, is that he won’t be setting himself up for a 2012 victory, leaving the field open for both Hillary (who will savage him in the primaries) and for a viable (do we have one?) conservative candidate.

UPDATE:  Sultan Knish has some fascinating insights from the crystal ball too.  (h/t Sadie)

UPDATE II:  Peter Wehner, dissecting Obama’s Rolling Stone interview, makes my point perfectly.  BTW, it’s fascinating that, despite the fact that Yawn Whiner was practically slobbering on Obama’s feet during the interview, Obama still managed to come off as a nasty, embittered, self-serving man.

UPDATE III:  Aside from the savagery of Jon Stewart’s attack on Obama, the clips he has of Obama’s unbelievable partisan speech, something more appropriate for a campaigner than the leader of a whole nation, you also see the viciousness of a narcissist scorned:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2010 – Democratic Campaign Woes
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Trusting our sources

by 10 Comments

I think science supports my disbelief in man-made global warming (aka, AGW).  I won’t go into the details now, but that’s the conclusion I’ve reached after reading a lot of the literature (including Brian Sussman’s Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam).

I didn’t reach that conclusion based on science in the first instance, especially because the real science wasn’t emerging.  I reached it on the conclusion that I didn’t trust the people who were selling AGW:  Al Gore, John Edwards, the UN, Hollywood types, etc.  They predisposed me to disbelief simply because I thought it too great a coincidence that AGW just happened to demand the full enforcement of their specific political agenda.

I discover myself doing this often:  taking my distrust of the messenger and engaging in a wholesale rejection of the message.  That cropped up in my post yesterday, with reference Eugene Joe [a correction that perfectly proves the ultimate point I'm making here] McCarthy.  Since the Left has sold McCarthy as the devil incarnate, from which they draw the conclusion that there were no Communist infiltrators in the government and the military, and since I no longer accept the left as a reliable source, I fell too readily in the trap of accepting assurances from conservative writers that McCarthy was an unsung saint, and the only one who took Communists seriously.  Now, someone I trust personally assures me that that McCarthy was in fact a devil, willfully destroying innocent people, but that there were indeed Communist infiltrators.  The truth lay between the two political extremes, with each side selling a lie.

Tainted information from biased sources is nothing new.  It’s an age old problem.  Every law student, in advocacy class, is taught to make a polite little speech to jurors about bias, acknowledging its existence and asking people to rise above it as they consider the facts.

Taking tainted information from trusted sources is also nothing new.  It’s a convenient short hand.  The more you trust the source, the less burden there is on you to investigate the facts yourself.  This works for the lazy, but it also works for the overwhelmed, or for the person who wants a handy piece of information but can’t reasonably be expected to investigate the entire body of known work.  Under any of those circumstances, the best that one can do is ask “Who is trustworthy?” and then, having answered that questions to ones own satisfaction, accept that trustworthy person’s version of the facts.

All of which is to say that I always, always appreciate it when you, my readers, correct factual errors in my posts.  Some are there because I was just plain wrong, some because I was careless, and some because I trusted the wrong authority.  None are ever there because I intend to mislead you.  So keep those corrections coming.  They matter, both for my own personal integrity and for my blog’s.

Why are we still paying to be insulted? — Boardwalk Empire & why I don’t like it *UPDATED*

by 24 Comments

HBO has recently premiered Boardwalk Empire, a lavish new series that seeks to recreate Atlantic City chicanery during the Prohibition era.  HBO really went to town on this one.  Not only did it get Martin Scorcese to direct (leading me to ask my husband, disingenuously, “didn’t he used to direct real movies?”), it’s obvious that HBO was ready to spend generously on the production itself.  The sets and costumes are gorgeous.  For a pedantic purist — and I am one — it’s an A+ job.

I’d almost enjoy watching the show if it wasn’t for that pesky little problem that crops up in so many Hollywood products:  the need to sling gratuitous insults at Republicans.

I blogged at length about this phenomenon after plunking down ten of my hard-earned after-tax dollars to see Julie & Julia.  That movie was sold as a charming romantic comedy/biopic, one that compared Julia Child’s love life to that of a modern young woman who undertook to bake a Julia Child recipe every day for a year.

It was another movie with lavish production values and a loving tone.  Meryl Streep played Child with shrieking verve, while Amy Adams was the neurotic Julie of the present day.  I’m not sure I would have liked the movie that much under any circumstances, given that Streep was exhausting and Adams irritating, but the movie lost me completely with its gratuitous swipes at Republicans.  As I wrote a little over a year ago:

I started getting uncomfortable when Julia Child and her husband used the fact that Julia’s Pasadena-based father was visiting to do a little McCarthy and Republican bashing.  Still, it’s pretty much de rigueur in movies that involve the 1950s for filmmakers to show their liberal bona fides by bashing McCarthy.  We’ve known since the 60s that Hollywood will never accept that old Joe was right, and the government did have a ridiculous number of communists and communist sympathizers anxious to do harm to the United States.  In Hollywood-land, only the excesses of McCarthyism (and there were indeed such excesses) live on in collective memory.  I therefore stayed with the movie despite this pro forma McCarthy indictment.

Where the movie lost me was during a scene in the modern era.  Its genesis is the fact that Julie, whose blog is taking off, is expecting a famous food publisher for dinner.  The night before the planned dinner she had made Julia’s Boeuf Bourguignon — and then burned it. The next day, she calls in sick to work so that she could remake the time consuming dish.  She carefully (and falsely) blogs that she is sick and then blogs later that, miraculously, she is well again, so as to lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative.

On her return to work the next day, she discovers that her boss has read this false blog entry, and is offended that she’d referred to work and that she’d obviously lied about her health.  Then (and I’m quoting from memory here), this bit of dialogue emerges from the bosses mouth:  “You’re lucky I’m a nice guy.  If I were a Republican, you’d be fired.  But I’m not (or I’m trying not to be) a schmuck.”  (Half the Marin audience laughed.)

Boardwalk Empire does exactly the same thing:  it throws in a swipe at Republicans that does absolutely nothing to advance the plot, but simply allows the Hollywood types to indulge in their usual mean-spirited nudging and winking at their fellow liberals.  To understand just how offensive the dialogue I’ll quote is, you need a little background.

The series begins at the very end of 1919, right before Prohibition went into effect.  We’re introduced to Enoch ‘Nucky’ Thompson, Treasurer for Atlantic City’s council. Within minutes we learn that, while he affects a pious exterior, and sells himself to the public as a devout prohibitionist, he is in fact planning to ally himself with independent rum runners, as well as the Chicago and New York mafia, in order to enrich himself and his cronies. He is, in a word, despicable.

Within the first few minutes of the movie, Nucky attends a New Year’s Eve dinner with his fellow council members and the mayor. All are eagerly awaiting Prohibition’s spoils. It is within this context that the following dialogue ensues:

Nucky: Mr. Mayor, Friends, fellow members of the City Council.  As you know, in less than 2 hours, liquor will be declared illegal by decree of the distinguished gentlemen of our nation’s Congress.

Assembled councilmen: Boo! Hiss!

Nucky: To those beautiful, ignorant bastards.

Assembled councilmen: Hear, hear!

Nucky: Rest assured that, dry though the country may be, I am in the midst of concluding arrangements and will keep Atlantic City wet as a mermaid’s t**t.

Mayor: Gee.  You’re f***ing mermaids now?

Nucky: Every vote counts, Mr. Mayor.

Unknown council member: A Republican through and through!

Did that last line add anything to the scene? I don’t think so. It simply showed that Martin Scorcese and friends are so lost in a world of Republican-hating that it leaks out of them constantly, like gas from a swamp.

The thing is that, as long as the public pays, these Hollywood types get away with this kind of crude disrespect.  We go to the movies and say, “Well, what can you do?  Other than that, it was a good movie.”  And we keep on paying for HBO because it feeds us sports and tolerable movies and other amusing stuff.

But really, shouldn’t we be making some sacrifices here?  I can live without a few movies if it means sending a message to Hollywood that it is not all right to take gratuitous swipes at half the movie-going population.  Can you?

UPDATE:  Elwin, in the comment, advises me that Nucky was, in fact, a Republican, a bit of information for which I am most appreciative.  I don’t think that changes the point I was making, which is that the throwaway line about Republicans was gratuitous in context.  This is not a serious documentary that looks at the political scene locally, in Atlantic City, and nationally.  In that case, one would a scholarly approach to the town’s political make-up that discusses the political parties and the nature of those parties at that time.  Instead, the characters are introduced simply as crooks and the line exists only to insult.

UPDATE II:  Apropos the Julia & Julie post to which I linked, a very reputable, erudite, learned scholar has advised me that McCarthy was every bit as vile as history has painted him.  There were communists in the government and the military, says my friend, but McCarthy came along after this threat had been removed, and simply used the backwash to destroy people for his own satisfaction.

The problem, as I see it, is that Leftist historians use McCarthy’s foul acts to hide the fact that the Communists had, in fact, infiltrated government.  He becomes the historic straw man for the very real threat to America’s constitutional integrity and national security.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0979432/

When it comes to the military, Obama can’t be bothered.

by 5 Comments

Did you know that the last Sunday in September is Gold Star Mother’s Day, which is a day meant for Americans to honor mothers who have lost a son or daughter who was serving in the United States Armed Forces?

It won’t surprise you, I’m sure, to learn that, on Saturday, George and Laura Bush hosted a response for local Gold and Blue star mothers.

I’m sure it also won’t surprise you to learn that our current president and his wife, despite an empty calendar (i.e., no pressing business, and despite his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, did nothing at all.  After all, this is the same president who refused his Generals’ advice about best practices in Afghanistan, because it would offend the base.

When told that 40,000 troops would be the best number for a true effort in Afghanistan (which means either fewer troop deaths or that such deaths as occur are towards a purposeful goal), he picked the number 30,000 as a politically expedient compromise.  Since the number has no military value, meaning it will not fully serve troop effectiveness, it can only be seen as adding more fish to the barrel in the Taliban gun sights.

I wonder when our troops will stop their endless forbearance towards a man who manifestly views their service and sacrifice as meaningless.

Hat tip:  Sadie

The Democratic party: parenting as imagined by teenagers

by 2 Comments

One of the routine accusations leveled against socialism is that it seeks to usurp the role of the adult in society.  If the government provides cradle to grave care, the people don’t have to.  They don’t have to raise their children, they don’t have to feed their families, they don’t have to plan for their old age — they never have to grow up.  The Nanny state is really “the parent state,” with the state filling the role that, in a more traditional society, individual adults filled.

America, however, always has to be different, and it’s created the parent state with a twist:  this is the parent state as imagined by your average 13 year old.  The evidence of this abounds.

***

Teenager:  “It’s not my fault.  He made me hit him.”  Teenagers aren’t big on personal responsibility.

Democrats:  It’s not our fault, even though our party owns Congress and our president voluntarily assumed the position of ultimate responsibility in America.  Instead, it’s George Bush’s fault, it’s the Republican’s fault, it’s conservatives’ fault, it’s Sarah Palin’s fault, it’s the fault of American voters who are too stupid to realize how great we are, etc.

***

Teenager:  “But that’s not fair!!!”  Up to a point, teenagers are in love with equality of outcome.  If anyone gets something they don’t have, it’s not fair!!! There are limits to this principle, however.  It’s entirely fair if the teenager has something that others don’t have.

Democrats:  Although the Democrats include some of the poorest people in America, they also include some of the richest (John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, etc.), and it is the richest who drive the Democrat train.  They think it’s unfair that there are poor people in America.  Their remedy, rather than sacrificing their own wealth, or ensuring full equality of opportunity, is to take away other people’s money and redistribute it according to the politically correct algorithm of the day.

***

Teenager:  “I don’t believe that we don’t have the money for that Juicy jacket.  Just put it on a credit card.”  Teenagers believe that parents are the money tree.  It is inconceivable to them that money is a finite resource, that it takes hard work to earn it, and that it must be spent wisely, with a significant portion saved as a financial cushion.

Democrats:  The Democrats view the taxpayers as parents who have an unending supply of money available to pay off the Democrats’ every whim.  The Democrats view our children, and our children’s children as useful credit cards, who will pay off today’s debt tomorrow.

***

I’ve got to head off to work now, but I bet you can easily think of other analogies between teenagers and Democrats.  There’s an overarching theme, of course.  Teenagers are utterly self-centered.  Even their better impulses are untempered by any notion of self-sacrifice.  If they want to hand money to the beggar woman on the corner, their first instinct isn’t to dig into their own pockets; instead, they’ll ask mom to empty her purse.  The good thing about most teenagers, though, is that they mature.  And the ones who don’t become Democrats.

Falling behind

by 1 Comment

This is an open apology — I fell behind on my email, and started sorting like mad, to preserve the wheat, while archiving the chaff.  Unfortunately, in my frenzy, I seem to have archived a bunch of substantive emails to you, my friends.  So if you wrote me and I didn’t respond, that’s why.  I know you’re out there, but I can’t find you because I’m not quite sure what I’m looking for, since I don’t know what I archived.

If you want a response, try resending.  My apologies!

The Democrats and the bad massage

by 6 Comments

When I was studying for the State Bar exam, a long, long time ago, my mom suggested that I get myself a massage, to help me with the tension.  It seemed like a good suggestion, I so dutifully took myself to a highly recommended masseuse.

The masseuse began working on my neck, and I hit the ceiling:  “Ow!  That hurts, that hurts.”  Her response was interesting.  She could have said, Oh, I’m sorry.  I didn’t realize you were so stiff/sensitive.  Let me change my technique.”  (Adapting to failed circumstances.)  Or she could have said, “Yeah, I know that hurts, but this is the only way to bring down the muscle spasm.”  (Explaining why some pain was ultimately a good thing.)

What amazed me was that she didn’t do either of those things.  Instead, she said, “This is not supposed to hurt, it’s supposed to feel good,” and proceeded with exactly the same painful technique.  Narcissism in action. I, being wimp in action, lay there and let her hurt me.

If you think about it, though, her approach is precisely the same approach we’re seeing from the Democrats with regard to the economy.  They’re not stopping, examining the situation and changing tactics, despite the manifest evidence that their original tactics (spending America’s way out of debt) are not working.  They’re not explaining to the American people that the current pain is a necessary step along the way to America’s ultimate economic recovery (perhaps because they can’t make that statement with a straight face).  Instead, in the face of pain and failure, they’re telling us “this feels good, you’re getting better, this is the way it’s supposed to be.”

Although I was a wimp, which meant I put up with the pain while I was on her massage table, I was still a consumer with mobility in a marketplace.  Once I staggered out of there, I never went back.  Instead, I found a gentler, more effective masseuse.  (And I passed the Bar, which alleviated my stress considerably.)

Americans, however, have a very limited marketplace right now.  Unless they can get some Republicans into Congress post haste, they’re stuck with this bad massage until at least 2012.  If they’re really unlucky, by 2012, their fiscal muscles will be so damaged, it will take prolonged therapy to remedy them, if it’s even possible.

My point?  Vote.  Vote for the Republican.  Ignore the fact that your Republican is being slandered by opponents and by the media.  Ignore the fact that your Republican, who is a citizen new to the political process, may make some missteps.  Ignore the fact that your Republican might have some ideas with which you don’t agree.  In this unique election year, the only thing that matters is killing the Democratic majority.

Help Daniel Webster refute Alan Grayson’s lies

by 3 Comments

I’m heading off to a client, so I don’t have time to blog.  Here’s all you need to know:

Rep. Alan Grayson is despicable, even by the low standards of despicable-ness currently emanating from the Democratic party.  His Republican opponent, Daniel Webster (and isn’t that a great American name) is currently being slandered and libeled at an unprecedented rate.  You can read the details here.

Unfortunately, because the Democratic party is the party of the rich, Grayson has a war chest ten times the size of Webster’s — which means that he can afford to promulgate these lies, but Webster may not have the money to refute them. If you’d like to change this scenario, and help fund Webster’s advertising defense, please think about contributing here.

Remember, every penny counts.  Whether you contribute $1 or $1000, it’s all to the good.

(Also, check out Caleb Howe for more on Alan Grayson.)

The Bay Area Patriots’ GroupaPalooza — from the Progressive perspective *UPDATED*

by 16 Comments

A little imp made me tell my Progressive friend that I would be attending the Bay Area Patriots‘ GroupaPalooza, which is, essentially, a convention for the small but robust number of conservatives in the Bay Area.  I’ve mentioned this friend before.  He’s the one who assured me that the Tea Party is a direct descendant of the John Birch society, and that it is using dupes like me to advance its evil racist agenda.  When I challenged him to give one example of a racist word or act emanating from the Tea Party, he earnestly assured me that the racism was all in code, with the initiated understanding the anti-black and antisemitic invective animating every Tea Party statement.

My friend brought out the same guns today, in a rear guard effort to steer me away from the GroupaPalooza.  Indeed, he added something new to the arsenal.  This Tea Party organization, he told me in portentous tones, was so evil it was funded by (insert Psycho music here) the Koch brothers.  I was suitably unimpressed.

As I drove home from the event, I amused myself by imagining how my friend would report on the Bay Area Patriots’ GroupaPalooza if he had attended.  So, for your reading entertainment, I hereby present “The Bay Area Patriots’ GroupaPalooza — from the Progressive perspective”:

Good evening, Progressive Womyn and Myn.  This is Soul-Talks-to-Trees Chang-Guitierrez-Goldberg, with a special report about the secret gathering of a bizarre conservative organization, located right here, in the heart of Marin. Who would have guessed that the Mill Valley Recreation Center, a destination spot for Marin’s children, would be the selected forum for these extremist political rituals?  (And not to complain or anything, but I think it’s grossly unfair that I got sent to this gig, instead of to the Folsom Street Fair.  This is a clear case of discrimination against a junior reporter.  It’s like the opposite of age discrimination, you know?)

On this sunny Sunday in Marin, hundreds of people, all a strange whiter shade of pale, streamed into recreation center.  Their entry was so uneventful — so lacking in protest signs, litter and nudity — this reporter could only conclude that they had been given mind-altering drugs in advance.  This would, of course, serve the dual purpose of disguising their racist and antisemitic agenda from the surrounding community (by making them look “normal”), and of preparing their psyches for the drumbeat of racial invective that rained down on them all afternoon.  Several of the women entering the building carried large handbags, which this reporter thinks could well have contained KKK hoods.

Once inside, I saw that myriad groups had set up tables and were handling out literature.  No matter where I wandered, I was assaulted by information from the Marin County Republican Party, the Republican Party of Sonoma County, the San Francisco Republican Party, the Republican Jewish Coalition, the NRA, and many other known racist and antisemitic groups.  All of them, of course, were careful to keep their cover intact, so the only information they provided to the GroupaPalooza’s attendees had to do with lower taxes, smaller government, freedom and liberty.  Naturally, I’ll have more to say about those code words and phrases later in this report.

Also present were representatives for those Republican political candidates who have the temerity to try to take away the state and federal seats rightfully belonging to Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Lynn Woosley, Jared Huffman, and Tom Ammiano.  In some cases, the actual candidates were there themselves!  In the interests of full fairness and disclosure (because I am nothing if not fair), I can tell you that these weasely challengers included John Dennis, Carly Fiorina (who had appeared in the same venue two weeks ago, so she did not show up today), Jim Judd, Bob Stephens, and Laura Peter. There may have been other challengers there, but I was already so overwhelmed by the racist vibes in the room that it was hard to keep track.

Although no one manning these various tables was overtly hostile, I could feel them look me over, just as if they actually knew that I have a black friend.  Or I had a black friend.  Well, to be perfectly honest (because I am nothing if not honest), my mail carrier is black and I always say “hello” to him.  I’m also very close to my Hispanic housekeeper, Rosa.  (Or is it Flora?  I always forget because, to tell the truth — and I always tell the truth — I try to stay away when she cleans ’cause it’s kind of uncomfortable to have to stop and talk to someone who scrubs your toilet, you know?)

Shortly after I arrived, five vertically challenged adults disguised as young girls gave a five-part harmony rendition of the United States’ warmongering national anthem (complete with references to bombs and rockets and, believe it or not, in a later verse, “God”).  Then, with the crowd pacified by music (and, as I said, possible sedative drugs) the speakers began their indoctrination.

Thanks to the Tea Party Code Book that this news station provided (I am told that it was “liberated” from the Koch Brothers’ secret headquarters), I was readily able to translate what was really going on.  Since there was a certain amount of repetition to the whole thing, the better to brainwash the attendees, I won’t repeat for you every speaker’s words, but will instead focus on the events’ main speakers and the gist of what they purported to say and what they actually said.

Thomas Lifson, who publishes American Thinker, a site I’ve never actually visited but have been told is racist and antisemitic, actually praised the attendees for their very existence.  He likened them to the bacteria that live in the heart of the volcano, sturdy life forms that cannot be destroyed.  He seemed to think that, somehow, there’s a virtue in standing up against our Dear Leader . . . um, sorry, I’ve been told not to say that.  He seemed to think that, somehow, there’s a virtue in making a stand against Barack Obama, divine leader of the American people.  What’s that?  I’m not allowed to say that either?  Well what can I say?  He was challenging The One!  Who does he think he is?

Consistent with the war mongering that permeated the atmosphere (they had American flags all over the place!), Lifson announced that American Thinker would soon launch a spin-off dedicated to the military.  This site is intended to humanize those same troops who air-raid villages and kill civilians.  As if!  I mean, Lifson has all sorts of plans for the site, such as letting family members write about what it means to have someone in the military, or have troops review the accommodations made available to them at various airports.  The crowd actually applauded this jack-booted claptrap.  I shuddered, and clutched my fingers tightly around the peace sign I wear on my neck, and thought longingly of my car, with it’s cool “Coexist” sticker on the bumper, made up of all those religious symbols some people believe in.

Lifson also seemed to think that Hillary Clinton might challenge President Obama, and I kind of just seized up.  ‘Cause you know, she’s a woman — uh, pardon, womyn, and I really want a womyn in the White House, ’cause then we can call it the Pink House.  But our Dear Leader, I mean, Obama, is black, and it would be racist to give a black president only one term.  So really, the only challenger I can think of is a black womyn like, maybe, Maxine Waters.  You know?  Or maybe Beyonce.  She’d be cool.

After Lifson, there was this dude from the Pacific Justice Institute named Brad Dacus, who just droned on and on and on about all these lawsuits his organization has filed just because some church or synagogue or something like that got all tweaked when the government said “Hey, you can’t have a church there because, 50 years ago, we gave permission for a hardware store to be there.”  This group also works really hard to force public school kids to say things like the Pledge of Allegiance (and, like, how totalitarian is that?) or to keep that old phrase “In God We Trust” around.  I mean, I may have all those religious symbols on my coexist bumper sticker, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe in God, right?

Worst of all, Dacus and the Pacific Justice Institute actually think that parents shouldn’t have to worry about the government stepping in when they spank their kids.  I mean, I was never spanked, and look how well I turned out.  He kept throwing around words like “freedom” and “liberty,” so I knew, from my Tea Party Code Book, that he was talking about lynching black people and concentration camps.  I mean, it was so obvious.

The next person to talk was John Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley who wants to torture all of us, every one of us, all the time.  I was actually really shocked that he was one of them.  You know, he’s Asian so he should understand how he’s been victimized by the man.  I mean, just because you’ve been to Harvard and Yale, or because you’ve clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, doesn’t meant you’re not a victim.

But Yoo didn’t understand that.  Instead, he kept talking about the Constitution as if it applies to all citizens.  He totally didn’t seem to get that the Constitution is meant to be used as an instrument of social justice by The One.  Oh, sorry!  Did I slip up again?  “By Barack Obama” is what I meant to say.  Anyway, he was going on and on about the fact that Barack Obama seems to have this weird backwards view of the Constitution.

According to Yoo — and what does he know, really, with his Yale Law education, his Supreme Court clerkship, and his job at Boalt Law School in Berkeley? — the president, is supposed to have a fairly small role domestically, one that consists primarily of reining in an extreme Congress; and a large role overseas, one that requires him to protect American interests abroad and national security at home.  Yoo seemed to think that it was wrong for our beloved President to push Congress even further Left than it wants to go, or to weaken America’s interests abroad.  As I said, Yoo just doesn’t get it, which must mean that he’s a racist.

Things only got worse after Yoo.  Brian Sussman, a media figure at the fascist station KSFO, gave this talk where he told all sorts of sob stories about some of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence.  He actually told the crowd that those men probably got their wives to agree to let them sign a document that would result in their being hunted down and killed by the British.  That was a laugh.  Like, can you really imagine those old white men actually caring what a woman said?

It was weird, though, that the crowd actually seemed moved by stories of these signers being imprisoned, of their losing their families and their homes, and of their living like animals, only to die, heart-broken, in the wilderness, all because they wanted to sign onto the Declaration of Independence.  Sussman also kept on talking about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which my Tea Party Code Book explains means “lynch blacks” and “Jews own Wall Street.”  No wonder the audience cheered and applauded so wildly when he finished speaking.  They knew what he really meant.

The scariest speaker, though, by far, was Ward Connerly.  You know why he’s so bad?  Because he’s so well-disguised.  There he stands, a slightly rotund, open-faced, neatly dressed older man, who speaks in clear, measured tones.  He tells his life story, which he interlineates with little jokes.

These sneaky techniques got the audience all wee-weed up as they heard how his father left him when he was two, and his mother died when he was four, so that he was raised by his aunt and her husband.  Now that everyone was on his side, Connerly kept going on and on and on about how his uncle worked really hard, and how his uncle loved America, and how his uncle had this incredible dignity despite the indignity of Jim Crow laws, and how his uncle was truly color-blind when it came to people’s race.

From all this, Connerly somehow concluded — and, like, I don’t know how he did it — that, just as it was bad for America to draw racial lines with blacks on the bottom and whites on the top, it’s equally damaging to the American psyche to draw racial lines with whites on the bottom and everyone else on the top.  Connerly actually thinks we can have a post-racial society, that sees people judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their characters.  I mean, how stupid is that?  Whoever came up with that idea?

It’s clear that Connerly has never attended a diversity training class, which could really help him, you know?  If he attended a class the way he should, he’d understand, just as I do, that the government’s primary purpose is to decide at any given time which race deserves government spoils, and which deserves government discrimination.   Fortunately, I learned from Connerly that ObamaCare, the Stimulus and the new banking laws all carry out this clear government mandate — “we also these truths to be self-evident, that the government decides which people are more equal” — by including provisions that specifically grant preferences to people other than white men.  That just goes to show that people like Connerly can’t push the government around.

I was pretty tired of the hostile atmosphere by this time, so I headed home.  As I drove away, mulling this report over in my mind, I could only shake my head in disbelief that this kind of treasonous activity is allowed to take place in our communities.  It was a relief to know that, if we can just keep our current Congress and administration for a few more years, we won’t have to worry about these racist and antisemitic malcontents any more.  They’ll all be financially equalized with their more victimized fellow citizens (thank you, redistribution!) and properly reeducated.

UPDATE:  A couple of things.  First, I forgot to mention Nick Adams, an Australian who believes that America’s unending commitment to liberty and her generosity make her the greatest nation in the world.  He gave an impassioned speech to that effect, reminding us that, sometimes, it’s the outsider who sees thing most clearly.  His website is here.  Check it out.  It will make you happy.

Also, I’ve been perusing the comments left at the Marin IJ and the SF Chron about this gathering and discovered that the only problem with my post is that I didn’t get the tone quite right — I was too polite.  But you can see there the tropes I mentioned — racist, war mongering, greedy, racist — plus one I forgot:  GeorgeNaziHitlerBush.