Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Tolerance: 'The flag of Islam will fly over the White House'

If Christiane Amanpour inadvertently allowed Muslim clerics to expose their true intentions, but no one was watching, does it really count?

On the Oct. 3 broadcast of “This Week,” the brainiacs at ABC determined it would be appropriate to pitch Christian leaders again moderate and extremist Muslims. This choice of programming comes at a time when many conservatives have chastised for being outspoken over the placement of Islamic worship center near the Sept. 11 Ground Zero site.

However, perhaps the most alarming statement on Amanpour’s program came from Anjem Choudary, a former British solicitors and Muslim cleric that spokesman for the group Islam4UK. Choudary contends eventually you'll see global Islamic rule, including here in the United States.

“We do believe as Muslims the East and the West will be governed by the Sharia,” Choudray. “Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House. Indeed, there's even an oration of the Prophet where he said, ‘The day of judgment will not come until a group of my...’”

The DNC press release publisher known as Politico somehow missed the Hitler-esque vision for world domination and instead focused like a laser on the Rev. Franklin Graham's concerns about Sharia law.

Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, called Islam “wicked” and “evil” on Sunday during a televised town hall-style discussion about American’s feelings about the religion.

“They want to build as many mosques and cultural centers as they possibly can so they can convert as many Americans as they can to Islam,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham went on to profess his love for “the Muslim people,” but said he has “great difficulty with the religion... Especially with Sharia law and what it does for women – toward women, toward non-believers, the violence that is given in – under Sharia law,” Graham said.

Given the headlines that we read on a daily basis, Graham's anxiety is altogether warranted.

Sharia law is a political system wrapped in the protective coating of a religion. The West must treat Sharia as the system of government that it truly is -- and not provide it with the protections of a non-political religious system. America did just that with Military Shintoism during the occupation of Japan after World War II. Traditional Shintoism survived the war, but the military precepts were banned.

Graham's concerns are well-founded given the Islamists' clearly stated aims at re-establishing a Caliphate.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Create Your Own 'October Surprise' Hit Piece for The New York Times!

It's easy -- even your kids can do it! Just make your selections and *poof* you're ready to submit your very own hit-piece to the fish wrap of record.

Special to The New York Times - The timing could not have been worse for Republican contender who was already trailing the Democrat candidate by according to the latest New York Times/Politico/CNN/MSNBC/Olbermann poll.

Earlier today anonymous sources revealed to the Times that the GOP candidate had once .

"This sort of shocking behavior is what we've come to expect from the party of Wall Street, Fannie Mae, ACORN, high taxes, and massive deficits," said Melvin Trotsky, the Democrat spokesman. After Trotsky was reminded that it was actually the Democrat Party that had taken the vast majority of contributions from Wall Street; orchestrated the subprime crisis and Fannie Mae's meltdown; supported hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, absentee ballots, and stolen elections; and quadrupled the deficit, he apologized for the gaffes and blamed the misstatements on .

The revelations capped a bad week for the Republican, the third in a series of shocking, anonymously sourced Times exclusive reports. On Monday, reports surfaced that the GOP candidate had allegedly .

Even worse, on Tuesday the Times reported that the candidate had once .

When reached for comment, a Republican spokesperson denied the accusations, claiming that all of the allegations had been fabricated by "Bill Keller's disgusting band of - Continued on Page C-12


Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Barack Chavez Obama doesn't want you watching America's most trusted cable news channel, according to polling by Politico and GWU

Last May, Mark Levin -- the President of Landmark Legal Foundation -- stated that President Barack Obama was the "closest thing to a dictator" this country had ever seen.

The list of horribles included his naked attempts to silence critics, his encouragement of voter intimidation, his support of rampant vote fraud, the implicit campaign to encourage illegal immigration, and his blatant abrogation of contract law (e.g., the GM and Chrysler bailouts).

Now Obama is at it again, demonizing the most popular and trusted cable news outlet in the United States. In an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama made the extraordinarily un-presidential claim that Fox is "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."

Consider that a recent Politico-George Washington University poll recently determined that Fox News is trusted by 42% of the American public versus 30% for CNN and a puny 12% for MSNBC.

Officials in the Obama White House have long made Fox News a punching bag, launching a full blown offensive last year when aides declared the network to be "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said the cable outlet "operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and top aide Valerie Jarret called Fox "clearly biased."

But the new comments from Obama constitute the president's most direct attack yet on the network owned by business mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

"But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."

Fox has yet to respond to the president. But during the administration offensive against the network last year, network spokesman Michael Clemente slammed the White House for continuing "to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about."

What the President is saying is simple: you can't be trusted to figure out which news shows are reliable.

Let me repeat: Barack Obama does not trust the American people. He apparently doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Freedom to dissent. Liberty. The First Amendment. Or the American Constitution, best I can tell.

This kind of behavior is beyond the pale. Especially for a man who took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Remember in November.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin and Memeorandum. Thanks!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Watershed Moment: A Few Minutes Ago, the New York Times Was Finally Forced to Report on the New Black Panther Whistleblower's Testimony

Moments ago, The New York Times finally reported on the testimony of Justice Department Civil Rights attorney Christopher Coates. The most experienced attorney in the Voting Rights division alleged institutionalized racism by the Holder DOJ. Worse for President Obama, Coates is a former ACLU attorney and was originally hired by Bill Clinton. He represents the antithesis of a 'right wing' zealot.

True, the Times' article will most likely appear on page B-17 of tomorrow's fish-wrap of record. Yes, the entire article is roughly three column-inches.

But since the ice was smashed with original reporting by the Washington Post, the DNC publicists at the Times appear to have given up on their information suppression campaign.

If proven true, Coates' allegations represent Watergate-level criminality by the Obama-Holder Justice Department. And the controversy just won't die, thanks to continued, original coverage by Pajamas Media, Michelle Malkin and other new media outlets.

As for the rest of the legacy media's reporting on Coates' testimony, the scoreboard stands as follows:

ABC News: nothing.
CBS News: one short AP wire story on 9/24.
NBC News: one short AP wire story on 9/24.
Politico: one story on 9/25.
Los Angeles Times: two articles including substantial original writing.
MediaMatters: one list of cherry-picked facts using the standard, Soros-approved damage-control format.

Watergate started with a botched break-in. Methinks the Times' reportage represents a real watershed moment in the pursuit of Eric Holder's bizarro DOJ.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

An Emperor In London

Funny how this wasn't covered in the Fish-Wrap of Record.


Hat tip: Ershel.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Woodward Shock Expose: Unqualified Community Organizer With Teleprompter Dependency Makes Surprisingly Lousy Commander-in-Chief

Let's just call Woodward's new book: "Hillary's October Surprise"

Some pundits will surmise that Hillary's knives are out for all to see. A few will point to the ongoing feud between Rahmbo and David Axelrod. Al Gore will blame climate change.

But the fact remains: Barack Obama is, as we predicted, monumentally unqualified for the most difficult job in the world.

Obama [was] at odds with his uniformed military commanders, particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus... [Author Bob] Woodward reveals their conflicts through detailed accounts of two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations...

Tensions often turned personal. National security adviser James L. Jones privately referred to Obama's political aides as "the water bugs," the "Politburo," the "Mafia," or the "campaign set." Petraeus, who felt shut out by the new administration, told an aide that he considered the president's senior adviser David Axelrod to be "a complete spin doctor."

During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was "[expletive] with the wrong guy." Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book.

Suspicion lingered among some from the 2008 presidential campaign as well. When Obama floated the idea of naming Clinton to a high-profile post, Axelrod asked him, "How could you trust Hillary?"

Given Woodward's disclosures, Axelrose's question was well-founded.

A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles.

Obama noted that if only Indianapolis had been targeted, "since it's a Red State, I'm not sure anyone notices."

Okay. I made that part up.

Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA's worldwide covert operations.

The leftists who shrieked more or less continuously for eight years about Bush's usurpation of the Constitution -- rather, the 'Constitutional rights of terrorists' -- were unavailable for comment at press time.

Oh, and thanks, Bobby. We already knew that Barack Obama was the most unprepared, unqualified President in history. Now tell us something we didn't know.

Yo, Woods: it's not like we didn't spend 18 months prior to November 2008 trying to warn you and the rest of the drones.


Hat tip: Memeorandum. Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Would anyone in legacy media be upset if Christine O'Donnell admitted that, decades ago, she'd dabbled in Islamic Sharia law?

Seriously.

Would Bill Maher utter a freaking word if Ms. O'Donnell admitted that once, in high school, she'd dabbled with an extremist form of Islam?

No. Because he's a punk. Yes, I said it. He's a punk.

Would the Washington Post raise a ruckus?

No, because they're punks too.

But there's no double standard.

And, last time I checked, there haven't been many stonings, floggings and suicide bombings by Wiccans.


Decisions, decisions: the Witch or the Marxist?

No, I'm not talking about Hillary vs. Barack.

Eleven years ago, according to the crack operatives working for Bill Maher, Christine O'Donnell admitted hanging around with Wiccans and dabbling in "witchcraft".

I suggest burning her at the stake. It's the only way to be sure.

I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did... I didn’t join a coven, I didn’t join a coven, let’s get this straight... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do...

One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s a little blood there and stuff like that... We went to a movie and then like had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar...

The context of this shocking admission was somehow omitted. After seeing a movie (Carrie?), someone took her to a "satanic altar" but she "didn't know it".

Ah, the peccadilloes of high school. Going to a movie and then visiting a Wiccan altar. Seriously, we should dunk her in water: if she sinks, she's innocent and if she floats, she's a witch.

But, last time I checked, high school Wiccans aren't destroying our country.

It would seem that the Fabian Socialists are, however. And O'Donnell's opponent -- a self-admitted Marxist -- is just such an enemy of America.

Which makes the whole point of this 'shocking admission' rather moot if you have children and grandchildren. Because most of us would vote for an unwashed orange juice can over a Marxist at this point.

It would seem that a lot of people have forgotten that elected officials are supposed to serve as proxies for us. And we don't want Marxists in office.


Update: Great comment at the Washington Post, where headlines are trumpeting the Wiccan menace.

Christine O'Donnell: I dabbled into Witchcraft.

Chris Coons: I dabbled into Communism.

Barrack Obama: I dabbled into Communism.
Barrack Obama: I did cocaine
Barrack Obama: I began my political career in domestic terrorists' (William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn) house.
Barrack Obama: I attended a Black Nationalist, racist church for 20 years.
Barrack Obama: My father was a Communist.
Barrack Obama: My mother was a Communist.
Barrack Obama: I've appointed Communists to responsible government posts.
Barrack Obama: My mentor (Frank Marshall Davis) as a teen was a Communist.
Barrack Obama: My favorite professors in college were Marxist professors.
Barrack Obama: My best friends in college were radicals.

Washington Post: We have a double standard in how we report on conservatives to how we report on liberals.
Washington Post: We report only negative things about conservatives.
Washington Post: We report only positive things about liberals.
Washington Post: We hack for one of the political parties (guess which one).
Washington Post: Many of our writers are socialists.
Washington Post: Many of our writers attack the mainstream in their articles.
Washington Post: We have racist writers (Eugene Robinson is one of them).
Washington Post: We occasionally print national security secrets in our paper to undermine the security of our nation.
Washington Post: We encourage illegal immigration with our articles.
Washington Post: We encourage class warfare with our articles.
Washington Post: We routinely mislead our readers with coverage that is NOT objective.

Pree-cisely. Well played, sir.

Update II: Wow.

Update III: Bill Maher's Witch Hunt -- the Missing Context


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Friday, September 17, 2010

Would-be Tyrants Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner Set Hearings on the Future of Conservative Talk Radio

Believe me: that headline is not an overstatement. Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) are attempting to pick off talk radio's advertisers, one-by-one.

They are starting with Goldline -- a half-century old business that just happens to place ads on the shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it's also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold...

A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner's Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman's Commerce Committee) will focus on "legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who's [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television."

From the press release: "Under Rep. Weiner's bill, companies like Goldline would be required to disclose the reasonable resale value of items being sold." That's great. Are Mr. Weiner and Chairman Bernanke also going to agree to print on every dollar the reasonable expectation that its value will be eroded by inflation?

Gold investors (or speculators) are already punished by the federal government by having their investment, even in a gold exchange-traded-fund, taxed at the higher rates that apply to collectibles rather than long term capital gains.

Not to mention the fact that Mr. Weiner's regulatory push seems as much aimed at conservative journalists as at the gold-dealers. The press release says, "Goldline employs several conservative pundits to act as shills for its' [sic] precious metal business, including Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Thompson. By drumming up public fears during financially uncertain times, conservative pundits are able to drive a false narrative. Glenn Beck for example has dedicated entire segments of his program to explaining why the U.S. money supply is destined for hyperinflation with Barack Obama as president."

Imagine the uproar if a Republican-majority Congress started investigating and having a regulatory crackdown on big advertisers in liberal outlets such as the New York Times. The First Amendment freedom-of-the-press crowd would be marching in the streets.

The whole situation is amazing. If Mr. Weiner really wants to calm fears about hyperinflation, the last way to do it is to have a government hearing cracking down on the people warning of it...

I want you to know that Waxman and Weiner are detestable Stalinist hacks. They represent a menace to the civil society. They are attempting to silence political speech with which they disagree.

I say this because Waxman and Weiner do not believe in the First Amendment, or any part of the Constitution, so far as I can tell. They are, as is their habit, blatantly violating their oaths of office.

Under the pretense of "consumer protection", Waxman and Weiner are attacking perfectly legitimate private businesses like GoldLine in order to silence conservative speech. Using the specious claim that GoldLine "grossly overcharges" its customers (PDF), Weiner is specifically targeting sponsors of conservative thought-leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Fred Thompson.

Waxman and Weiner are thugs masquerading as Congressional representatives. Why? Because Goldline isn't overcharging anyone.

A one-ounce 2010 American Eagle gold bullion coin is the single best benchmark for most gold collectors. Using a Google search, I took the first nine websites I found (that would allow me to shop online) and ran through an ordering process for a 2010 1-oz. Eagle on each.

And this is what I found:

Raw Price + ShippingTotal PriceShopping CartWebsite
$1,239.05 + $24.95 shipping$1,264.001 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleAPMEX
$1,256.22 + $17.95 shipping$1,273.171 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleGainesville Coins
$1,255.48 + $27.00 shipping$1,282.481 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleBlanchard Online
$1,240.01 + 24.95 shipping$1.284.961 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleGolden Eagle Coin
$1,295.00 + free shipping$1,295.001 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleGoldLine
$1,278.74 + $20.95 shipping$1,299.691 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleBrandon's Coins
$1,247.92 + $49.51 shipping$1.297.431 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleBullionDirect
$1,299.00 + $19.95 shipping$1,318.951 oz. 2009 Gold American EagleAustin Gold Information Network
$1,399.00 + $7.45 shipping$1.406.451 oz. 2009 Gold American EagleSteve's Collectibles
$1,435.00 + free shipping$1,435.001 oz. 2010 Gold American EagleGovMint

In fact, Goldline was fifth out of ten on total price for the one-ounce benchmark gold bullion coin, separated by 2% from the first slot. Does that sound like overcharging to you?

Are Waxman and Weiner investigating #10?

Or #9?

Or #8, #7 or #6?

No. Because they don't sponsor conservative authors and speakers. If these Democrats were really concerned with overcharging, they could have found far better targets than Goldline in a matter of a few minutes, just as I did.

Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner are would-be dictators. They are, in no uncertain terms, targeting free speech. Their tactics are anti-American.

If these penny-ante tyrants get their way, any business that advertises on talk radio is fair game.

I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican. If you believe in the right of free speech, you will reject the current slate of Democrats.

Spread the word: give Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner pink slips in November.


Thursday, September 16, 2010

December 2009 and a possible rationale for Karl Rove's vicious attack on Christine O'Donnell

Is there a rational explanation for Karl Rove's vicious, unmanly and -- frankly -- outrageous attack on Christine O'Donnell?

On Tuesday, the night of Rove's explosion, The Freedomist reported that he had earlier been heavily invested in Mike Castle's campaign.

Sources at the Christine O’Donnell victory party revealed to The Freedomist that in December of last year Karl Rove met with Tea Party leaders in Dover, Delaware trying to get them to cut a 'deal' in which they would leave Mike Castle alone and NOT support O’Donnell.

The Freedomist has also learned that Rove was allegedly acting as an operative, although in what capacity it is not known, even as he is playing the role of a political analyst on Fox New in a fair and balanced way...

While Rove's possible affiliation with Castle's campaign hasn't yet been disclosed, I did locate an article that may help shed some more light on the issue.

Mr. Peabody, set the wayback machine to December 2009 and fetch me a copy of the Wall Street Journal while you're at it:

Can Republicans Retake the Senate in 2010?


Probably not, but their candidate recruitment so far has been stellar.

By KARL ROVE
...One feature giving Republicans an edge is that several senate seats are up for grabs because the politicians who were elected to fill them are now serving in the Obama administration. This includes seats formerly held by Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden... Rep. Mark Kirk is a strong candidate to pick up Mr. Obama's old seat in Illinois. Rep. Mike Castle, a popular former governor, could pick up Mr. Biden's former seat in Delaware...

In other words, Rove was shilling for some of the more egregious liberal Republicans last December, especially Castle. A primary challenge by more conservative GOP candidates hadn't even been contemplated by Rove.

Was he a paid operative? Or did he just back the wrong horse, calling his credentials as the all-knowing, all-seeing 'architect' in doubt? Was the attack simply about diminished stature -- whether as a paid consultant or as an oracle for Fox?

That mental exercise is best left to the reader, but suffice it to say that his behavior will only help enrage and energize the conservative base. It's not complicated, Karl: it's only the freaking Constitution, to which neither you, Castle nor the rest of the entrenched Republican establishment seem to give a moment's thought.

That is why we're out to take over the GOP and throw all of the bums out, no matter their party affiliation.

See, that's not too hard to understand, is it, Karl?


Update: Michelle Malkin Rips Karl Rove a New One for His 'Vicious' Attacks on Christine O’Donnell.

GTFO?

Dan from New York:

"... it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

  -- Senator Barack Hussein Obama, San Francisco Fundraiser, 2008

"They say I'm dumb. Yes, I'm dumb. I'm so dumb I got two Lincoln Continentals, that's how damn dumb I am!"

  -- Lenny Bruce send up of an Evangelical preacher in the brilliant Religions Inc. (1958)


It's a common trait of political elites to look down their noses at those who cling to their guns and religion and characterize it as a disorder. This year, though, it's proving to be a big mistake.

Signs continue to build that the state-run media's attempt to demonize the Tea Party movement has flopped on Main Street, if not Broadway. It was always about preaching to the perverted anyway and, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, their numbers are dwindling rapidly. The Republicans' ugly knee-jerk reaction to the Tea Party challenge is fading too, now that the blue blazer conservatives have been mugged by the bumpkins and the party's operatives are beginning to see the light (of victory).

It's entirely possible the great wave of hysteria that brought the Obamatons to power will utterly recede only two years after it inundated the land. If it does, it will be an affirmation of the underlying health and restorative powers of America's instincts and common sense.

Yet, as nice as that sounds, don't take it for granted. Complacency is not an option. There's still almost two months to go and only an all-out effort from here to the finish line will bring success. Obama will not go without a fight, and men like him seldom fight fair.

Only overwhelming with our numbers will work.

Remember: "If it's not close, they can't cheat."


Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Could someone check the water inside the Beltway? Krauthammer and Rove teeter on the irrelevancy cliff as they brutalize Reagan's 11th Commandment

Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove both have storied histories backing the conservative movement and, by extension, the Republican Party. But it would appear that they've become far too cloistered, or at least far too invested in the establishment, to truly understand the mood of the country.

Delaware voters turned out in record number to reject the ridiculous 'progressive Republican' Mike Castle in favor of a real conservative named Christine O'Donnell.

Nevada voters rejected two Republican candidates for a clear Constitutional conservative, Sharron Angle.

Rove and Krauthammer have now expressly attacked both. And for what? Because their predictions were wrong? Because they had a stake in the losing camps? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care.

It would seem that both analysts think the American people are too stupid to judge these things for themselves. I just hope they had a bad fish dinner a couple of nights ago and come to their senses shortly.

Gentlemen, there's a very simple playbook we're operating by. It's called the Constitution. Mike Castle and his ilk operate unmoored, picking and choosing policy positions like they're throwing darts.

We've had enough of that bulls***. The stakes are too high and the situation too dire to play that game.

Furthermore, as Jim Hoft reminds us, Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment was straightforward:

"Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Republican"

Dear Messrs. Rove and Krauthammer: learn it, love it, and live it.

Otherwise, prepare to be flushed down the irrelevancy hole. It's not a tough choice. James Madison or Karl Rove? Thomas Jefferson or Charles Krauthammer?

Gee, what a dilemma.


Update: Creepy Harry Reid hands O’Donnell her first general election ad on a silver platter

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Delightful: Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), on taxpayer-funded junket in Germany, agrees that most taxpayers are radicalized racists

That unspoken rule about never speaking ill of America while on foreign soil was eradicated long ago by the MoveOn Democrats. Interviewed by Der Spiegel, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) pulled out the frayed, oft-used race card to explain America's opposition to the Marxist policies of Barack Obama.

SPIEGEL: But that's what we've had for the last two years, and it hasn't worked out well. If anything, the political tone in Washington has gotten worse.

Lewis: It's unfortunate. We have very little control over the fact that the Republican Party is being hijacked by the extreme right. That the Tea Party is gaining influence. We cannot tell the Republican Party who should be their leaders.

SPIEGEL: Of course not. But the question is whether Washington would function better if the Republicans had a majority in either the Senate or the House. Would that not make them less inclined to be obstructionist?

Lewis: No. I think the Republican Party is going to the extreme. If it continues on the path it's on, it will continue to be a minority party for many years to come.

SPIEGEL: There has been a lot of talk about how the black community felt about Barack Obama's election. Now, though, everyone is talking primarily about white anger. How does the black community feel about his presidency thus far?

Lewis: The black masses in America love Barack Obama. Black candidates and black Members of Congress would love to have Barack Obama come and campaign for them. I wish I could get him to come down to Georgia to campaign for me, but he thinks my seat is safe. He is very popular. You cannot say anything negative about Barack Obama in the African-American community and get away with it.

...SPIEGEL: The radicalization of the right, in other words, isn't necessarily due to the US having a black president for the first time ever?

Lewis: In some quarters, it's true, people cannot get used to the idea that a person of color is president of the United States. People cannot get comfortable with the idea that so many people are coming from different parts of the world to America. In just a short time, America will be a minority majority, and that feeds some of the frustration.

You see, John, you may be a touch senile, but we opposed HillaryCare. Not because Hillary's a woman -- though I'm sure you'd like to play the gender card -- but because it sucked.

We support Alan West for Congress. Not because he's black, but because he's teh awesome.

We believe in history, facts, logic and reason -- the distillation of which is the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Oh, and that race card? It appears to have seen better days.


Related: Timeline: Anatomy of a Tea Party Smear by the Democrat-Media Complex.

Hat tip: PJ.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Helpful Progressive Pundits Nate Silver and HuffMo's Bill Scher Quite Concerned About 'Insurgents' Who Could Cost the GOP a Senate Majority

Gee, they've been right about so very much. They backed TARP. Barack Obama for President. The Stimulus Package (or, as I like to call it, "Lotto for Unions"). The Omnibus Spending Bill. Deficit spending from here to eternity. Oh, and lookie here: Gitmo's still open; troops are still in Iraq; and MINC actually approved a Bush-style surge in Afghanistan.

Yes, these are real genius prognosticators at work.

2 Insurgents Could Hurt G.O.P. Chances for Senate Takeover


Mike Castle: Give Him a Pink SlipThe first race in Delaware, where Christine O’Donnell, a political activist and commentator, is running against Michael N. Castle, who has held elected office in Delaware for 30 years as its governor, lieutenant governor and lone United States representative. The contest originally appeared to be a mismatch...

...Mr. Castle – a moderate who is unambiguously a member of the establishment – was next on their target list. And so Ms. O’Donnell, who already had the support of the Tea Party, last week received endorsements from Republican thought-leaders like Ms. Palin, the National Rifle Association and Senator James DeMint of South Carolina.

In contrast to Alaska, however, where Mr. Miller is the favorite to be elected unless Ms. Murkowski finds her way onto the ballot as a Libertarian or write-in candidate, Delaware is a blue state, and the electoral prospects of Mr. Castle and Ms. O’Donnell there are wildly divergent. Whereas Mr. Castle is nearly a 95 percent favorite against the Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, according to last week’s FiveThirtyEight forecasting model, Ms. O’Donnell would have just a 17 percent chance of winning a race against Mr. Coons.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we have a GOP with more Mike Castles in it -- that can't agree on unimportant principles like the DISCLOSE Act (it's only the First Freaking Amendment) -- I'd just as soon have one less Senator.

But Silver and Scher are wrong about pretty much everything, so I strongly suspect that should Christine O'Donnell pull the upset, she'll have an excellent chance of edging her Democrat challenger.

By the way, Nate -- I'm still waiting for my apology from you and Keefus ("Sunday NFL Games Are Watchable Now") Olbermann over Dealergate. After all, Obama's "Car Czar" has admitted that politics played directly into decisions over which facilities were closed.

But I understand your dilemma: you're wrong about so very much -- where would you begin your apology tour?


Paul Krugman graduates to writing campaign slogans for the GOP

James Taranto observes that Paul Krugman has finally walked towards the light, albeit inadvertently.

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, writing from Tokyo, reflects on the upcoming elections and comes to this cheery conclusion: “Americans, understandably, are disappointed over, frustrated with and angry about the state of the economy; but disappointment is better than disaster.”

"Disappointment is better than disaster." It's a bit long for a bumper sticker, but otherwise not a bad election slogan: honest, pointed, yet not promising too much.

Just one question: Why is Krugman writing slogans for the Republicans?

Doh!


Hat tip: Ben.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Press Secretary Who Re-Tweeted the New York Times' Hit Pieces

Total politicization of the Executive Branch is officially complete.

• Another* anonymously-sourced hit piece on a Republican (who is poised to damage Democrats in November) by the fish-wrap of record? Check.

• Key snippets of the Times' hit-piece instantly re-tweeted by Robert Gibbs, using the official White House Twitter account? Check.

• Further confirmation of the Media-Democrat Complex? Check and mate.

Downright embarrassing.

But it's not unexpected, seeing as how this White House possesses all the class of a bunch of Chicago aldermen on a 20-month power bender.

It's amazing: the White House doesn't even realize that its open collaboration with the Times' anonymously-sourced hit pieces -- disguised as 'news stories' -- is downright embarrassing.

The unholy alliance of legacy media and the Democrat Party is now obvious to even the most obtuse observer.

Which hopefully will hasten the demise of both entities in November.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin and NewsBusters. Thanks!
* See New York Times' Anonymously-sourced John McCain Lobbyist Affair Hit Piece

Friday, September 10, 2010

Michelle Obama gets physical, physical, as she humiliates fat kids in race to show them that cheeseburgers and bad genetics really suck

The captions just write themselves, don't they?

Did you know that Michelle put her own kids through a diet program before embarking upon her campaign against child obesity? I know. You have to go overseas to read that news.

Oh. And expect a battery of New York Times articles regarding the Obama arm-toning regimen.


Wednesday, September 08, 2010

They're not even trying to fake it

It's an ancient game -- and one that always ends in misery. By that I mean the way the 'progressive left' incites warfare between arbitrary groups of people. It's what they specialize in. They divide people based upon income, race, religion, creed and gender -- pitting one group against the other for petty partisan gain.

Last week it was Al Sharpton and the NAACP accusing the Tea Party conservatives of racism (never mind the roughly two dozen national conservative candidates of color). This week it's outright agitprop by a group called 'American Progress'. Hint: they're un-American and anti-progress.

Here, the deficit is portrayed as the fault of the rich. Never mind the $840 billion 'Stimulus' bill that simply propped up bloated state governments. Forget about the half-a-trillion Omnibus Spending Bill that ratcheted up government hiring at an unprecedented rate. And don't you even mention socialized medicine, because it hasn't kicked in yet. Therefore: it's all the fault of the evil rich--the top 2%.

Who are the evil '2%' -- the Bourgeoisie? Is it the police officer who is married to a flower-shop owner in San Diego, who together make over $200,000 in combined gross income? Or is it the 60-year old machine-shop owner in Tulsa who spent his entire life building a business that grosses slightly over $250,000? Are they the evil 'rich'?

For comparison purposes, consider this poster from the Soviet Union, circa 1950.

Uhm...

• The 'fat-cat' rich living in the lap of luxury? Check

• The down-trodden 'middle class' counting their pennies? Check

• The all-knowing, all-seeing government -- hidden from view, but certain to be far more efficient than the free market? Check and mate.

Gee, can anyone tell me how the Soviet Union turned out?

These leftist Democrats are so freaking stupid it makes me nauseous. History, facts, logic and reason make no difference to them. They blindly believe in and follow an ideology -- an ideology that has failed in every time and place it's been tried. But they believe in it with a religious fervor that can only be compared to that of a cult.

Yes: our current leaders are cultists.

It's November or never.


In the name of all that's holy, Pinch, please please please put Krugman behind the pay-wall again

Even the painfully dimwitted Arthur Sulzberger has to recognize the irony of the situation. On 19 September 2007, his family's rapidly diminishing legacy -- The New York Times -- ended its ill-fated experiment called TimesSelect. The test placed articles it considered important behind a "pay-wall" -- but quickly found that readers didn't share management's high opinion of Krugman, Dowd, Rich and other leftist hacks.

This week, nearly three years later to the day after it dismantled TimesSelect, Pinchy (don't ask) confirmed that the venerable Gray Lady would implement a new pay-wall in 2011.

Readers will be allowed to access a certain number of articles free each month, then will be asked to pay... [Sulzberger] confirmed that the paper will work with Google to implement First Click Free, stressing that "we want to ensure that NYTimes.com continues to be part of the open web ecosystem."

Many details of the pay strategy are yet to be decided, however. "We are still working on deciding what type of content will count towards the metre," as photos and graphics may well require different considerations... "We believe that serious media organisations must start to collect additional revenue from their readers," and "information is less and less yearning to be free." Readers are becoming increasingly willing to buy information on the web if it enhances their lives, he said.

A further incentive towards experimentation is that in the digital age, the cost of changing is low. "If we discover that we've tried something that's not working, we could change it." This should not be seen as failure, he emphasised, but as a willingness to adapt and learn. The TimesSelect experiment in 2007 was not aborted because of a failure to succeed, Sulzberger insisted, but because the paper thought it could make more money from advertising revenue.

Catch that? TimesSelect "was not aborted because of a failure to succeed" -- HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH (breath) HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH (gasp) HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA (ech, *cough*) HAHHA (ow!). Owwwwww. I think I just sprained my diaphragm.

Speaking of Krugman, earlier today the invaluable Tyler Durden used everything but brass knuckles and a two-by-four on the columnist voted 'Most Likely to be Mistaken for a Weasel'.

The year is 2002, America has just woken up with the worst post dot.com hangover ever. Paul Krugman then, just as now, writes worthless op-eds for the NYT...

And then, just as now, the Keynesian acolyte recommended excess spending as the solution to all of America's problems... So what can we say of those who openly endorsed [inflating a housing bubble] as a solution to America's problems? Enter exhibit A: New York Times, August 2, 2002, "Dubya's Double Dip?"

Name the author: "The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

If you said Krugman, you win. Indeed, the idiocy of Keynesianism knew no bounds then, as it does now. The solution then, as now, to all problems was more bubbles, more spending, more deficits. So we have the implosion tech bubble: And what does Krugman want to create, to fix it? Why, create a housing bubble... Well, at least we know now how that advice played out.

And now what? He wants another trillion in fiscal stimulus... Quadrillion? Sextillion (arguably this cool sounding number is at least 2-4 years away before the Fed brings it into the daily vernacular)? And just like the housing bubble he suggested then brought America to the biggest depression it has ever seen, so his current suggestion will be the economic cataclysm that wipes out America from the face of the earth.

Durden's first concluding question is "how does Krugman still have a forum in which to peddle his destructive ways?" -- to which the hopeful answer is Pinchy's new pay-wall.

Durden's penultimate takedown of Krugman's lunacy will definitely leave a mark.

Which transitions well to the conclusion of Sulzberger's prediction.

Asked about his response to the suggestion that the NYT might print its last edition in 2015, Sulzberger said he saw no point in making such predictions and said all he could say was that "we will stop printing the New York Times sometime in the future, date TBD."

Just give us plenty of warning, Pinchy, so we can schedule the week-long funeral bash.


Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Let me see if I get this straight...

Let me see if I get this straight:

• The State Department warns travelers to Saudi Arabia that the "public display of non-Islamic religious articles such as crosses and Bibles is not permitted."

• Travel to Makkah (Mecca) and Medina, the cities where the two holiest mosques of Islam are located, is forbidden to non-Muslims.

• The Saudi government forbids the practice of other religions. There are precisely zero churches, synagogues and temples in the country.

• Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy and is, in most circumstances, punishable by death.

• Proselytizing by non-Muslims is illegal, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials; if caught doing so, you will be arrested, charged with proselytizing, and forced to serve two or more months in prison.

• Saudi women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims.

• The Government requires non-citizens to carry Iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contain a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim."

• Women do not have the right to drive.

• A teacher in Saudi Arabi was sentenced to 70 months in prison and 750 lashes for "mocking religion" after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews.

But it's American citizens that are intolerant for opposing the construction of New York's 150th mosque -- because it's located at Ground Zero.

What a frickin' crock.