Believing his magnificence and awesomeness were enough to sway the Middle East towards peace and friendship, The Great Prevaricator threw the United States’ prestige under the bus. His first move was back with the first European tour. He single handedly connected every world problem directly back to the West. When some European leaders weren’t too happy with that act, he followed it with an even bigger, super-sized ‘Blame America and the West’ tour part two.   After all, to make sure the entire world believed him, he had to do it again. Achieving worldwide shame isn’t that easy. The tin pot dictators and tyrants of the world aren’t easily dissuaded concerning the prestige of the United States. But, when you are determined, you can really make the world a more dangerous place. 

Embarrassed by the lack of mullah response to his Cairo speech, Obama became more determined to abase our national stature. It is only when we stand as equals with autocrats that they will take us seriously. That is the world view of the collectivists. Since they are confirmed oligarchs, they understand and respect other world leaders who also scorn common democratic beliefs. Only tacky, silly, simple, sophomoric average Americans still believe in liberty and democracy. That is so last century. Power elites and ruling classes are today’s black. But, let’s get back to the bungler-in-chief. 

Since it was obvious the mullahs had threw the election to the present president as an affront to Obama’s prediction, Abu Hussein would do the best he could with the situation. That meant just accepting the non-election’s pseudo-results and to hell with the idea of democracy. In fact, the president is clearly impressed with the way the mullahs are handling this chaotic situation. Barry is giving them their space, which shows just how valid and legitimate he views their rule. To understand his thinking, you must accept how a collectivist views power and resistance to it. The mullahs are doing exactly what he sees as an acceptable response to political dissidents. Obama and the mullahs have that much in common.

Abu Hussein sees the conservative resistance to his socialist policies in precisely the same way the mullahs view their opposition. Obama looks at the opposition and sees traitors and agitators to his power. These sad little ‘teabaggers’ and ‘fringe’ groups are a tiny misguided group of miscreants who aren’t smart enough to understand his hold on power. “Resistance is futile,” is the mantra of collectivists. The mullahs are just dealing with the same kind of resistance. If he lets them handle these troublemakers, they will afford him the respect to negotiate with him. If he speaks out against the obviously faux election results, they will not deal with him. That’s where this bizarre choice of words comes into play.

Obama said we will not ‘meddle’ in Iranian affairs. He chose that word for two very good reasons. First, he believes the mullahs are a legitimate political force that resisting is foolish. Second, he honestly believes that if the rightful power elites are allowed to deal only with one another, the right political result will occur. If we allow the hoi polloi a hand in the system, they will do something stupid, like demand freedom, equality, and democracy. Collectivists only believe in the APPEARANCE of such things. You don’t actually LET the people make up their own minds. That’s for unsophisticated rubes and not for complex, highly evolved elites such as himself. He knows what’s best for you. You certainly don’t. The Iranian people cannot possible figure out what’s best for them. That’s why you have the Guardian Council, to protect the people from themselves. 

Unfortunately, the use of the word ‘meddle’ has far-reaching implications and deeply troubling extenuations Abu Hussein didn’t intend. Meddle is a word that connotes pettiness and imposes upon another’s prerogative. While he considers American involvement in the Iranian election as a presumption and not worthy of consideration, many bad actors in the world heard that word and seized upon it. Any autocrat that hears this sentiment expressed will be emboldened to crush any nascent democratic movement with impunity. All democracy and freedom movements will be ‘handsoff’ from this administration’s radar. From now on, all movements that empower ordinary people and rob elites of exclusive power will be fair game. Any move by this administration will be branded as ‘meddling’ in their internal affairs. 

Meddling could be things as inconsequential as piracy. Somalia certainly has the right to govern its own citizen’s behaviors. Stopping pirates on the high seas is ‘meddling’ in their economic affairs. It certainly isn’t our business how the Somali people make a living. That is for their non-existent government to regulate.

Certainly, Sudan has jurisdictional control over its own country and those agitators in Darfur are only getting what’s coming to them. If the Obama administration condemns the genocide occurring there, they are certainly meddling in that country’s affairs. After all, it is their country and their prerogative how to deal with their citizenry. 

Venezuela is financing and supporting vicious gangs who are politically enslaving and violating people living in Columbia. They are doing so because of capitalist pigs who are exploiting people and making them feel bad. So, Venezuela is exercising its socialist prerogative and punishing the overlords in neighboring Columbia. Fuark is THEIR means of bringing about the people’s business. If America does condemn their raping and robbing of a people, they are clearly meddling in Venezuela’s foreign policy initiatives. That would be unfair to Chavez and his murderous thugs. 

So, in essence, the Obama administration has slipped on a pair of handcuffs, stepped into leg irons, closed up the locks, and threw away the key. From now on, their foreign policy will be hampered and dogged with accusations of American ‘meddling.’ No tyrant will pass on the chance to both blame the United States and limit their voice as an attempt at meddling. There is no argument that will sound either coherent or honest if we dare to condemn their actions. Any action by us will look as a petty power grab. Obama just ended any hope of success for his administration’s foreign policy. We are voiceless and sterile, all potency abandoned for a faithless, Iranian Hail Mary. 

Carrie Prejean’s fall from grace was not about gay marriage. Her story is not about free speech. The Prejean story is about power. It is about identity politics and political scores. It is about old fashioned payback and the collectivist mind. The Carrie Prejean story is about making a person a martyr in order to calm a political ally.   Her story is not new. It is the story of a faction becoming integrated into a political alliance and not getting its issues addressed. This is the genesis of her fall from grace

Back in the seventies, the gay movement was powerless as a political force. The Stonewall riots in New York City in 1969 had unified gays, lesbians, and transgender people into a community of sorts relying on one another for political and legal cover. As a movement they achieved a win in 1973 when the psychiatric association removed homosexuality as a disease or disorder. This was done by more conservative consensus-makers and doctors. But, most of the self-styled leaders of the gay community were radicals. They were, for the most part, left wing fanatics that embraced socialist ideals and methods. Among these ideals is the idea of collectivism by which political power is gained through subsuming your own ideals into a larger group and facilitating changes by working in concert.

Most of the gay community wasn’t up for this at all. The gay community is as politically diverse as the rest of the nation. Most gays and lesbians, in the seventies, didn’t agree with the gay liberation ideals of destroying the institution of the family and freeing sexuality from the socially constructed labels of gay, straight, transgender, etc. An overwhelming majority of men want to be men and women want to be women and they just love and mate with others of the same sex. At first the radicals were marginalized and ignored. They protested and fomented and made outlandish statements while most gay people just lived their lives and quietly, in increments, came out to families, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. The fear of gay people eased with these broader movements but then AIDS reared its ugly head.

AIDS was especially scary because it crept into the population and had devastating consequences. The sexual liberators were the hardest hit, at first. But the gay population soon found they were pariahs in general society because of fear. The collectivist left saw this politically active group as being very tight-knit because of its shared reliance on other gay people for political and legal cover especially in the age of AIDS when they were marginalized further. The gay community had started losing their slow, hard-fought level of acceptance because of general fear of AIDS by the society as a whole.

The collectivist left saw the gay community as an opportunity to increase both their financial and political power in the country. If they ran political cover for the gay community, they argued, could the gay community be a reliable ally. Gay community leaders had been floundering about waiting for someone, anyone to offer this kind of deal. Liberal politicians started calling for more support for AIDS related problems. The gay community responded with votes and checks. A coalition had been completed. 

The collectivist left then told the gay community that this ‘marriage of convenience’ would work well for them both as long as the community was willing to pay their dues to the rest of the coalition. The gay community must faithfully support the collectivist agenda without complaining about their own issues just yet. Military service, partnering rights, non-discrimination in the workplace, and special criminal protections would have to wait. The collectivist agenda of special rights for women, racial minority and other various groups had to come first. Just patiently wait and follow our lead and you will eventually get something. It may not be for many years, but it is coming. The then leaders agreed and the bulk of the community followed. 

Throughout the eighties and early nineties, the gay community faithfully supported the collectivist agenda getting only support for AIDS research, outreach, and health care. That was the benefit they achieved for subsuming any other issues they wanted passed. The gay community became a central part of the Democratic Party mainly because of the volunteers, cash, and reliable votes they provided. The Democratic Party didn’t really pay them much mind because, after all, they had not yet ‘paid their dues’ like women and minorities and unions had. 

Finally, in the early nineties, some gay community members, sick of holding their noses and paying for and voting for these issues they didn’t agree with began caucusing and discussing a partnership with Republicans instead. It was absurd to vote for all these socialist programs if you don’t believe they are in the best interest of the country. The Log Cabin Republicans were born.

The Democrats were scared to death. They could not let one of the most reliable suppliers of volunteers and cash to slip away to the other party. Bill Clinton proposed a little sweetener to keep the gay community safely within the collectivist fold. He boldly backed letting gays serve openly in the military. That silenced many of the more reasonable and conservative voices in the movement. The right wing of the gay movement had only wanted equal opportunities and not a wholesale change in society. This gambit worked. They voted for and supported Clinton helping him achieve a narrow victory. The coalition was safe. 

Clinton proposed allowing gays to openly serve in the military and a firestorm of protest greeted the pronouncement. He gave in, almost without a fight, and proposed, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue’ as a policy. The gay community wasn’t exactly thrilled, but it was a little something. But Clinton, and especially his wife, gave the gay community something even better, at least in the minds of the gay political leaders. The president gave them access to his administration and a place at the table. Of course, he didn’t give them any concessions or actual progress. But the leaders of the gay movement were mollified. Finally, someone actually respected them as important parts of the collective. That was enough for these leaders. The Democratic Party had become their home. 

That didn’t placate the rank and file of the gay community. They still wanted equality and respect for all gay people, not just the leaders. So, the Democrats came up with a brilliant ruse to placate the rank and file. The age of political correctness became even more powerful. All gay people and stances on gay issues would become politically toxic if questioned by any one person or group. They spread this controlled speech dogma into other specialized groups in the eighties and it had worked so well it would be perfect for gay community groups also. As a well-coordinated machine, the collective would pounce upon anyone who dared question any in their tight coalition. They’d isolate, criticize and publicly humiliate any who would point out problems or inconsistencies. 

The gay community took the bait. They, along with feminists, minorities, unions, progressive socialists, and environmentalists would collectively rise and defend one of their own whether that group or person was right or wrong.  Such political cover was a joy to the leaders of the gay community. If a person dared to defy the collective, the power of all the assorted groups would descend like a cloud of locusts upon that person and chew them to shreds. No one dared to ask why political issues like same-sex partnerships or workplace protections weren’t being addressed. They’d be massacred immediately by the collectivist attack machine.

But, many rank and file gay people continued to defy these orders. They were ostracized by the greater collectivists and made to pay with ad hominem attacks and marginalization. The so-called leaders of the gay community made sure their allies knew exactly who needed ‘educating’ by not attacking the issue but instead attacking the person. This removed the question from the table. So now we come to Carrie Prejean.

Perez Hilton wasn’t offended by her answer. He wasn’t even particularly interested in her answer. What he was annoyed by was her refusal to answer it in politically correct gobbledygook. She was not playing the game. She had the audacity to her own opinion. That simply isn’t allowed in the mind of the collectivist. His scree on YouTube was not against her belief in traditional marriage. His scree was personal. He signaled the attack on her. He let the collective know he was offended and that as payback she would have to be eliminated.

This, of course, misses the whole point of a political movement. It isn’t to make people who disagree with you to ‘go away.’ A political movement is to achieve certain goals and raise certain issues. The gay community has bought into this broader coalition that dares not give them their goals. The Democratic Party, which is in firm control of both the Congress and the presidency, could in a New York second pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), end gay military discharges, and repeal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). THEY CAN’T. If they pass those three pieces of legislation, the entire gay community will be free to vote their consciences instead of in concert. They’d lose those volunteers, contributors, and voters in a flash. Instead, by keeping the gay community hungry and in need of political cover, they preserve the collectivist coalition. 

Carrie Prejean is just a scrap of meat the collectivists have thrown to the gay community to keep them quiet. That is all. There is no politically motivated reason to attack her. There is not issue driving her simple answer. She was used as a political tool to keep the gay community firmly in the collectivist camp and wedged firmly away from the rest of the nation.. The great lie in all this is the idea the Democratic Party is the gay community’s friend. They are not. They are holding the community captive with hope and frightened with friendship. Sharp teeth lie behind the collectivist smile, and the gay community knows it. That is the only reason they made Carrie Prejean a martyr. She is a chit in a political shell game. 

 I’m sure a great deal has been written on this site about Governor Palin’s standing up to the bully in the schoolyard, Mr. Letterman. But, I think the woman is a shining example of just how effective the true and moral stance can be. This woman not only stood up and called the talk show host on his pervy comments about her daughter and his degrading characterization of her. She stood up to all the bully collectivists in the schoolyard and called their bluff. These people believe they are above us in every way. Governor Palin made one eat his words.

David Letterman’s nasty characterization of Sarah Palin as a ‘slutty flight attendant’ was bad. But the collectivist media has been doing that for months now. They have acted in concert to diminish and marginalize the entire population of the country that doesn’t belong in the Hollywood-Media-Political clique. Their condescension isn’t limited to conservatives, or conservative women, or even non-Democrats. These people believe themselves a governing class who are the only people who can direct the resources and attention of this nation. What they are most appalled by, in Gov. Palin, is not her looks or her demeanor, or her politics. What they are most appalled by is her audacity to speak directly to the people without their permission. She is a vital threat to them because she isn’t cowed by their elitism. It galls and infuriates them. And, more importantly, it threatens their place.

What Davy did was give her a clear and noble example of just how seriously flawed their moral imperative is. You see, they can attack and belittle any who refuse to bow to their position as nobles. That is all. They consider themselves the ruling class in this country. John McCain never seriously concerned them because he took years playing the game and building relationships with the ruling class. He is part of them. But, Mrs. Palin, she is an upstart. That must be buried. You can’t have the hoi polloi upsetting their neatly arranged apple cart of hierarchies. That just isn’t done. 

So, Davy the Pervy made a sick, pathetic joke at Palin’s daughter’s expense. It would have flown just under the radar had he not made a tactical mistake. He presumed it would be the beleaguered Bristol who attended the Yankee game with her mother. He told the joke believing it would just further the filthy characterization the media carefully crafted concerning her. But it wasn’t Bristol at the game. It was the younger, fourteen-year-old Willow who attended that game with her mother. That gave Sarah the Brave the perfect opportunity.

She could have brushed it off, like so many have before. Palin knew, as did the rest of the nation, he meant to smear Bristol with more muck. But she bravely took the slight and called Old Pervy to the carpet. Davy, smugly, self-assuredly, tried to clarify. He invited the Palins to New York on his dime and to appear on his show. It only made him look worse. Instead of looking magnanimous and accommodating, he looked foolish and foxy. It was here the Palins really took the creep to task. 

Instead of letting it lie fallow, the Palins came back with the retort that first they wouldn’t go on and ‘improve his ratings’ which marginalizes the ever-diminishing returns of the has-been. Then, returned fire by saying it wouldn’t be wise to have their daughter within feet of the old bugger. They’re not concerned about Viagra boy in the least. But it paints him with the same muck he tried to smear them with. Beautiful.

The Ogler was on the ropes now. Sarah Palin went on the Today show this morning with Matt Lauer. Matty wanted to do his best to protect his fellow peer of the realm. He tried his darnedest to trip up Palin on her well-deserved outrage. Months of enduring this endless sideshow had taught her well. She gave back even better than she took. She demanded an apology from Creepy, not to her, but to all women. It was women who have been smeared by this classist garbage. Common, everyday women are being showered with reminders not to step out of their place or the self-styled nobility will destroy you. They will attack you and your family and your connections and your very existence if you have the temerity to stand up to the ruling class.

Sarah Palin did more for this country than just humiliate one sicko. She shot a warning across the bow of the establishment. You are not above us. You cannot act without reprove. You are not better than us. We, the American public are the rulers. Not you. This is a message I would hope those in power will take to heart. I think some direct hits wouldn’t hurt however. 

There is a great deal of sympathetic and defensive text being written to confuse and screen President Obama’s nominee for the High Court. Sonia Sotomayor, in a speech before a college, uttered this sentiment, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Many people are now trying to shield Ms. Sotomayor from the impact of her words. They are trying to minimize what she said as a misstatement or as meaning something quite different. As a white male, I am insulted by this philosophy and I will explain exactly why I’m offended and believe this nominee should be dropped.

I am a white male, and so as a white male Judge Sotomayor would immediately presume a set of attributes to me that would put me in a certain light. It appears the judge believes there is a hierarchy of ability based on gender and skin color. These attributes give more a more favorable impression of those people than white males. It is this presumption of attributes and the resulting hierarchy of ability based on race and sex that makes this remark racist. After all, she hasn’t gotten to know me. She simply assumes that I’ve had a life of oppressing people and living at the top of the heap. Her assumptions are entirely false.

I’ve had a ‘rich’ life filled with experiences that have humbled me, thrilled me, made me scared, lifted me up, and thrown me into despair. That rich life isn’t obvious. I don’t run around screaming about my past to everyone. Sotomayor, and people like her, would look at me and say I was an average white male. In their eyes, I am a person of privilege who’s lived a charmed life. I couldn’t possibly understand the kinds of bigotry and discrimination they’ve faced. They couldn’t be more wrong.

I’m gay.  I had a very difficult time coming out. My best friend, when he found out, abandoned our friendship. My family has also struggled with this fact. They have been as supportive as could be expected but it hasn’t been a bed of roses either. Also, I’ve experienced prejudice because of my sexual orientation. In the 1980’s when AIDS and HIV were such a scare, I had people shy away from me, fearful they would catch something from me. I’ve seen the furtive looks and heard the snickers. I’ve had people who didn’t want me to wait on them when I was a server. I don’t wear those experiences on my sleeve. I internalized them and learned from them.

I am also politically independent. In a community as politically monolithic as the GLBT community, I’m shunned. Instead of engaging in political discourse, many deride my views and openly call people like me names. They are shocked and enraged that I don’t embrace identity politics as a refuge in the storm. They are confused by my belief that I am not primarily gay, or primarily anything. I’m an amalgam of experiences, beliefs, hopes, fears, and dreams. I can no more support a liberal agenda than I can renounce my own name. That also has given me rich experiences and insight into the world.

I was, for a time, homeless. I lost everything I had and had to start from scratch. I worked at a job for little more than minimum wage and climbed my way back to prosperity. It taught me important lessons about myself and about life close to the bone. It gave me confidence and strength. But those things are not written on my white skin or emblazoned on my gender. They are internalized things that make me unique and yet part of it all. But, that is not what Ms. Sotomayor will see. She will only see my white, bearded face. In that face she will write a narrative about me that is as foreign and untrue as any storyteller’s. She, and others who presume who I am, will disregard my voice because my voice, they argue, is the voice of privilege.  

Never mind my struggles. There is no room in the narrative about white males for that. Never mind my triumphs. The narrative declares I inherited and didn’t earn those. Never mind my fears. They are the nightmares of the oppressors. Never mind my dreams. They are already fulfilled by virtue of my dermal pigment and y-chromosome. That is the essence of racism; a sad, false presumption that from visible genetic markers you can know a person. It is a biased viewpoint that as a nation we’ve tried to overcome. But, when used by some, it is considered legitimate. No more. As one of those presumed a history I did not live, I declare the nominee a racist. My story, as well as countless others, is the reason this nominee is wrong about so many things and should bow out. 

The American political system is based on a useful falsehood. It’s based on the falsehood that David Brooks is an intelligent, thoughtful man who represents the right wing, or conservative point of view when writing. It is a falsehood borne of the idea that an intelligent man, without political aspirations or social obligations, can put aside his social caste and come up with a reasonably cogent argument why a biased mind should be granted a seat on our highest court. In an editorial in Tuesday's StarTribune carried from the New Obama Times, he attempts to defend Sotomayor by making rule of law seem, well quaint.

David Brooks has opined that our grasp on reality is tenuous. We are nothing but a corporal body of fleeting and twirling emotions that are unable to grasp even the briefest glimpse of the law or the truth. He doesn’t believe in the law, per se. He believes the law is a chimera created out of thin air by hackneyed ideologues hell-bent on deceiving us. He believes ‘it is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason’ because he can find no reason in his own thinking. Everything and everyone, to Brooks, is but a dream.

Brooks asserts, we are all just a bunch of ‘emotional intuitionists’ grasping about in the world like we are blind and deaf to all logic and instead react knee-jerk to ideas from a romantic notion we have in our heads. These notions, models he calls them, are the apparatus that makes the world work. We are unable to identify any differences that may occur that would fly in the face of those notions. They are timeless and unbending.   He believes we are just machines that operate unthinkingly, without questioning or ability to use that imaginary system we call reason. Every one should understand this world is not real. It is just an illusion. 

David Brooks continues with how his mind works and therefore how all our minds work. “The mind tries on different solutions to see if they fit. Then – often while you’re in the shower or after a night’s sleep – the answer comes to you.” Truth, to David Brooks, is a random series of a collection of fleeting thoughts and emotions roiling around in one’s mind. Like Berkeley, the truth is a reflection of the mind and not a solution or application of law or precedents. 

Once David Brooks smashes this illusion that reality is, well, real, he goes on to defend the target of this column. “Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad type if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class.” Here is where the great David Brooks flails with the monster that is the justice system and loses. It is here where his lazy thinking and impetus defense of the nominee is lost. 

A finder of law must empathize with ALL types of people in so much as they don’t see color or gender or national origin as having ANY bearing on the case. The eyes should not deceive. The case, whatever case in question, should not hinge on the vagaries of class at all. The reason we have statues of justice wearing a blindfold is because the color or gender or national origin of the litigants should never be a factor. The ideas involved in the case need to be weighed, not the classes. The all-knowing David Brooks has created a philosophical nihilist model and then peopled it with a bunch of mental robots that react in predicable ways according to race, color, sex, and national origin. He has, in fact, exposed himself as a believer in chauvinism as a finder of law.

He continues with a bunch of claptrap about ‘love of institution’ as a defense for her. If you love the law, you will respect it. Please. That is the thinking of an elitist that believes if you follow a code of conduct, like chivalry, you will arrive at the truth. Only the elect need apply. Then, he continues that if she understands her murky, flawed mind, she will adapt to it. After all, if you understand nothing is real, then your decision making process will be freed. If nothing really matters, then we are free to fly, or some other such nonsense. 

Finally, David Brooks, speaker of the truth, concludes with evoking the ancients to buttress his meandering nihilism. He calls on Burke and Hayek to endorse his new emotionalism as justice. From the far grave, these philosophers will rise up and give evidence in support of his shifting shadows theory. ‘They argued as such, so my argument has merit’, he begs. Such is the fatal apologia for a biased mind. To defend the lady’s honor, he has shifted our rule of law into the rule of emotion. To support her nomination, he is willing to abase our legal philosophy into a morass of shifting sands. Bravo, David Brooks, Bravo.