Is Barack Obama A Fellow Traveler Of The Iranian Regime

The resident nut at The National Review, Andrew McCarthy, wonders why President Obama has been forgoing a neck tie so often. He write:

"Derb, I've noticed that President Obama frequently forgoes the necktie — lately, even in public appearances. That reminded me — I have no idea why — that the Iranian regime has shunned the necktie ever since Khomeini pronounced it a symbol of Western decadence. I've always assumed that's why Michael Ledeen is often picturedconspirators." wearing a big, bold tie — you know, as a signal to the other

Perhaps I have grown too sensitive to his ridiculousness and now everything he writes sounds crazy but is he implying that the President is signaling his allegiance to the Iran government? Sphere: Related Content

The Fallacies Of Defense Of Death Panels By The National Review's Village Nut

Every village has one, I guess every periodical has one also. Even after the editors of the National Review retreated from the craziness that is the Sarah Palin "Death Panel Extravaganza of Lies" Andy McCarthy, village nut, asserts his support for the craziness. The crux of his never say die support is the claim that she has not been proved wrong. He writes:

"finding themselves unable to defend the plan against her indictment, Democrats have backed down and withdrawn their 'end-of-life counseling' boards."

We need to understand that the village nut will occasionally, OK usually, get things twisted, wrong and backward, such as facts and logic. It is much easier to throw ludicrous statements and lies around than it is to disprove a negative. Since the bill does not mention "death panels" even once it is nearly impossible to prove where HR 3200 says "death panels" won't occur. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam or an appeal to ignorance. Defined:

the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.

If you want to read more about fallacies click here . For those of you that prefer your explanations of logical fallacies in video form here you go:




McCarthy throws a new charge on the "death panel" claim. He writes:

"the Obamacare proposal has a remedy for 'a society as litigious as ours': it systematically cuts off access to the courts so that the decisions of the executive branch are final. The bill is designed to insure against litigation pressure to spend more rather than treat less."

I did not see this in the bill, but I admit I have not read HR 3200 fully. But I am certain McCarthy nor Palin have either. Perhaps it is easier to throw out lies than to gather facts but it surely makes you look stupid. If any body knows anything about this claim please let me know.

I wonder how the editors of the National Review feel about McCarthy's "dissent." I would not expect them to be angered at the act of "dissent" but at the shocking stupidity of the arguments.

Here is a link to a previous post about McCarthy lies and Justice Sotomayor. Sphere: Related Content

Mr. McCarthy it is absolutely wrong to call people liars while you are lying.

I want to only address a few of Andrew C. McCarthy's mistakes in his piece in the National Review Online today. Mr. McCarthy it is absolutely wrong to call people liars while you are lying.

Mr. McCarthy writes:

"We must heartily agree with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s observation that a 'wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases' — even if we’ve spent our professional lives denying that simple truth."

I am not a lawyer but I can read and then apply that knowledge to the world. Justice O'Connor's statement on its face is nice but does it square will reality? Unless the justices of the Supreme Court are not wise it seems that nine wise judges don't always arrive at the same conclusion. Judge Sotomayor's now infamous "wise latina" speech while sometimes not very artfully written contains some very true ideas. In the speech, addressing Justice O'Connor's statement Judge Sotomayor asserts that there "can never be a universal definition of wise". I would agree that there is no absolute way to define "wise." In general two people can arrive at differing opinions or conclusions and both be wise and correct. Yes.

"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." One of only a few statements that made the world stop eight years after it was spoken. Mr. McCarthy writes,

"The notion that a “wise Latina” or a wise fill-in-the-racial/ethnic/gender group will make better decisions than judges drawn from other categories of Americans — especially white men — is repulsive."

What is repulsive is that the ops research people discard context or they don't understand context. The title of the judge's speech is "A Latina Judge's Voice". The speech took place at a conference titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The context of this area of the speech is in the area discrimination. Prior to this infamous line the Judge cites research that finds female judges are more likely to "uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases" or "grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights." In this context I believe the "wise latina" is fine.

Mr. McCarthy repeats the ridiculous claim that Judge Sotomayor on the topic of abortion supports the argument "that the denial of such funding to low-income women is tantamount to slavery." This is not true. No one has made that claim. The Associated Press researched this claim and found:

"The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund board, along with three other organizations, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that banning taxpayer-funded abortions discriminated against poor minority women. At the time, Sotomayor served on the group's board of directors.

There is no connection to slavery in that brief. After the Supreme Court upheld the Illinois law, however, the PRLDEF joined 285 other civil rights organizations...in asking the court to reconsider. That document does draw a link between abortion rights and slavery, but not quite as explicitly as Graham said.

"Just as Dred Scott v. Sanford refused citizenship to black people, these opinions strip the poor of meaningful citizenship under fundamental law," the documents say.

The Dred Scott case ruled that slaves are not citizens.

In the abortion case, the civil rights groups argued that, under the Constitution, treating people differently because they are black is the same as treating them differently because they are poor. By citing the Dred Scott case, the lawyers clearly sought to draw a parallel between denying abortion access and slavery. But they did not argue that denying poor women access to free abortions was a form of slavery."

Finally, is Judge Sotomayor a "judicial activist"? How would I know. How would Mr. McCarthy know. His evidence is weak and misleading, his favorite kind. He quotes Judge Sotomayor, "court of appeals is where policy is made.” That is outrageous until you understand the context of the statement. The context is that the appellate court is where the laws are interpreted and developed to be applied to a broad class of cases. Watch the longer clip on this topic.

Context matters and truth matters. This process is too important to be fooled by lies.
Sphere: Related Content