Have you ever wondered to what depths a man will sink to get his rocks off? [I was going to type "to get laid", but everybody knows that's not going to happen.] Here's AmeriKKKa's least favorite Nazi poet and intellectualoid chanteur with a couple of examples:
Note how its the naked hot chick with her face removed [like on Criminal Minds, or Dexter for those of you with cable] who gets faux masturbated upon and not the thoroughly modern "empowered" little person. [All you naughty kiddies who thought "midget" or "dwarf" will get a spanking from The Dark Lord Of Dumbass Himself. But not the hot chick. Sorry.] Or am I reading too much into it and all Kurtzey And His Kooky Krew are guilty of is a love of dessert? [He did mention pie in a previous plaintive missive...]
Ah, talk about self-explanatory! Just remember, kiddies, that all tough guys [both real and pretend] eventually come face-to-face with someone or something tougher and discover [in the hardest way] that Power is a real bitch.
In Kurtzey's defense, he hasn't sunk to the 2 girls 1 cup level [I know you kiddies are going to look it up 'cause you want to be cool like your ol' Uncle Fyodor, but I'm begging you to read the description of the video on your Gogol, yes I said Gogol machine before you decide to watch it. Bells cannot be unrung.] yet, so there may be hope for him and his victims. [I'm thinking of the poor dumb bastards who fork over their dwindling OkhranaBucks to watch and allegedly listen to this silliness. Of whom are you thinking, kiddies?] Of course, it could merely be a case of Youtube not allowing that kind of art to be posted there.
Do you think any non-moderate mohammedans will "riot" [hee-hee] after watching this? If they were smart [a big, big if] they'd sit back and let our brains rot from all this kultur we got gong on.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The Michael and Cathryn Borden Memorial Book of the Day.*
Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama
From Goodreads:
“This isn’t a story about black people—it’s a story about the Left’s agenda to patronize blacks and lie to everyone else.”
For decades, the Left has been putting on a play with themselves as heroes in an ongoing civil rights movement—which they were mostly absent from at the time. Long after pervasive racial discrimination ended, they kept pretending America was being run by the Klan and that liberals were black America’s only protectors.
It took the O. J. Simpson verdict—the race-based acquittal of a spectacularly guilty black celebrity as blacks across America erupted in cheers—to shut down the white guilt bank.
But now, fewer than two decades later, our “postracial” president has returned us to the pre-OJ era of nonstop racial posturing. A half-black, half-white Democrat, not descended from American slaves, has brought racial unrest back with a whoop.
The Obama candidacy allowed liberals to engage in self-righteousness about race and get a hard-core Leftie in the White House at the same time. In 2008, we were told the only way for the nation to move past race was to elect him as president. And 53 percent of voters fell for it.
Now, Ann Coulter fearlessly explains the real history of race relations in this country, including how white liberals twist that history to spring the guilty, accuse the innocent, and engender racial hatreds, all in order to win politically. You’ll learn, for instance, how
--A U.S. congressman and a New York mayor conspired to protect cop killers who ambushed four police officers in the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s mosque.
--The entire Democratic elite, up to the Carter White House, coddled a black cult in San Francisco as hundreds of the cult members marched to their deaths in Guyana.
--New York City became a maelstrom of racial hatred, with black neighborhoods abandoned to criminals who were ferociously defended by a press that assessed guilt on the basis of race.
--Preposterous hoax hate crimes were always believed, never questioned. And when they turned out to be frauds the stories would simply disappear from the news.
--Liberals quickly switched the focus of civil rights laws from the heirs of slavery and Jim Crow to white feminists, illegal immigrants, and gays.
--Subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz was surprisingly popular in black neighborhoods, despite hysterical denunciations of him by the New York Times.
--Liberals slander Republicans by endlessly repeating a bizarro-world history in which Democrats defended black America and Republicans appealed to segregationists. The truth has always been exactly the opposite.
Going where few authors would dare, Coulter explores the racial demagoguery that has mugged America since the early seventies. She shines the light of truth on cases ranging from Tawana Brawley, Lemrick Nelson, and Howard Beach, NY, to the LA riots and the Duke lacrosse scandal. And she shows how the 2012 Obama campaign is going to inspire the greatest racial guilt mongering of all time.
*Huh? Look here.
Here's Ann having to deal with the left-fascist illuminati: [From Mediaite via Inquisitr.com]
You don't have to vote FOR Romney. He can be contained once he's in power. You must vote AGAINST left-fascist terror and control.
TERROR IS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
The Economic Terrorism President and The Party of Blasphemy, Buggery, and 'Bortion are trying to frighten you into surrendering your freedoms for a few crumbs.
TERROR IS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
America's first Economic Terrorist President only needs to buy a majority of votes in a few states. Do you think The Party doesn't know that?
TERROR IS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
US manufacturing is struggling as businesses brace for the year-end "fiscal cliff" in an economy that entered the third quarter with less momentum than thought, data released Thursday showed. - AFP via Yahoo! UK & Ireland News
US economy grew only 1.3% in Q2
The US economy was more sluggish than thought in the second quarter, growing only 1.3 percent, Commerce Department data released Thursday showed. - AFP via Yahoo! New Zealand News
A trio of reports Thursday offered a reminder that the U.S. economy is struggling to grow and add jobs. - Associated Press via Yahoo! News
Now let's hear from an AP stooge who never read The Grapes of Wrath:
The U.S. economy
is showing signs of finally bottoming out: Americans are on the move
again after record numbers had stayed put, more young adults are leaving
their parents' homes to take a chance with college or the job market,
once-sharp declines in births are leveling off and poverty is slowing.
- Associated Press via Yahoo! News
Obama promotes economy in campaign ad
US President Barack Obama has talked up the economy in a new campaign ad targeted at swing states. - AAP via Yahoo!7 News
- Obama Pitches Platform in New Two-Minute Ad - National Journal via Yahoo! News
- Obama Calls for 'New Economic Patriotism' - ABC OTUS News via Yahoo! News
Look! Our Leninist-Leninist dictator wants to create his own Nepmen. I'll bet you $20 they'll have less freedom than those in Soviet Russia did.
TERROR IS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED.
DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONTROLLED.
FREEDOM AND ITS RISKS AND STRUGGLES ARE BETTER THAN SUBSISTENCE LIVING AT LEVIATHAN'S TEAT.
The Catholic crackup continues apace.
In case you needed to be reminded why your ancestors fled Europe and why we used to have a First Amendment, check out this story about The Church [and other churches] laying with dogs.
From AP via Yahoo News:
For
religious institutions, struggling to maintain their congregations in a
secular society where the Protestant Reformation began 500 years ago,
the tax revenues are vital.
The Catholic Church in Germany receives about €5 billion ($6.5 billion) annually from the surcharge. For Protestants, the total is just above €4 billion ($5.2 billion). Donations, in turn, represent a far smaller share of the churches' income than in the United States.
"I
quit the church already in 2007," Manfred Gonschor, a Munich-based
IT-consultant, said. "It was when I got a bonus payment and realized
that I could have paid myself a nice holiday alone on the amount of
church tax that I was paying on it."
Brilliant!
Gonschor added he was also "really fed up with the institution and its failures."
But the figures include some people who still want to
baptize their children, take communion on major religious holidays,
marry in a religious ceremony and receive Christian burials.
The group We are Church, which claims to represent tens of thousands of grassroots Catholics, said many Germans stop paying the tax because they disagree with the church's policies or simply want to save money — not because they have lost their faith.
"I haven't quit because I still think that I might want to get married in a church one day, even though I know that's absurd," said Anna Ainsley, a 31-old-year banker and a Protestant from Frankfurt. "But when I see my tax declaration, then I think every year that I should finally quit."
Those are the people that Germany's Catholic bishops had in mind when they decreed on Sept. 20 that stopping the payment of religious taxes was "a serious lapse" and those who did so would then be excluded from a range of church activities.
"This decree makes clear that one cannot partly leave the Church," the bishops said in a statement. "It is not possible to separate the spiritual community of the Church from the institutional Church."
Wavering Catholics will now be sent letters reminding them of the consequences of avoiding the church tax, including losing access to all sacraments.
"Maybe you haven't considered the consequences of your decision and would like to reverse this step," a draft of the letter states.
Switzerland
and Austria also tax Catholic and Protestant church members. In
Denmark, the State Lutheran church collects a tax from its members.
Members of Sweden's Lutheran Church pay around 1 percent of their
income, collected by the national tax authorities, just as in Finland.
In Italy, tax-payers have the choice of diverting a small part of their income taxes to religious institutions, including the Catholic Church and the country's Jewish community, but the contribution is voluntary.
In none of those countries have the churches taken such a firm stand against dropouts.
So far German courts have stood by the bishops' decision. This week the country's top administrative court threw out a lawsuit against the archdiocese of Freiburg by retired theologian Hartmut Zapp, who has spent years fighting the Catholic Church over the tax.
Zapp argued that a Catholic should be free to stop paying but remain a member of the spiritual community and that his religious beliefs could not possibly be tied to a tax payment.
The archdiocese responded in a statement that "those who lack solidarity bid farewell to the community of believers."
"Now I'd like to convince my husband that he also should quit, that would save us a lot of money," she said.
From AP via Yahoo News:
No tax, no blessing: German church insists on levy
The road to heaven is paved with more than good intentions for Germany's 24 million Catholics. If they don't pay their religious taxes, they will be denied sacraments, including weddings, baptisms and funerals.
A
decree issued last week by the country's bishops cast a spotlight on
the longstanding practice in Germany and a handful of other European
countries in which governments tax registered believers and then hand
over the money to the religious institutions.
In Germany, the surcharge for Catholics, Protestants and Jews is a surcharge of up to nine percent on their income tax bills — or about €56 ($72) a month for a single person earning a pre-tax monthly salary of about €3,500 ($4,500).
The Catholic Church in Germany receives about €5 billion ($6.5 billion) annually from the surcharge. For Protestants, the total is just above €4 billion ($5.2 billion). Donations, in turn, represent a far smaller share of the churches' income than in the United States.
With rising prices and economic uncertainty, however, more and more Catholics and Protestants are opting to save their money and declare to tax authorities they are no longer church members, even if they still consider themselves believers.
Brilliant!
Gonschor added he was also "really fed up with the institution and its failures."
Such defections have hit the Catholic Church
especially hard — it has lost about 181,000 tax-paying members in 2010
and 126,000 a year later, according to official figures. Protestants,
who number about 24 million nationwide, lost 145,000 registered members
in Germany in 2010, the most recent year from which figures are
available.
The group We are Church, which claims to represent tens of thousands of grassroots Catholics, said many Germans stop paying the tax because they disagree with the church's policies or simply want to save money — not because they have lost their faith.
"I haven't quit because I still think that I might want to get married in a church one day, even though I know that's absurd," said Anna Ainsley, a 31-old-year banker and a Protestant from Frankfurt. "But when I see my tax declaration, then I think every year that I should finally quit."
Those are the people that Germany's Catholic bishops had in mind when they decreed on Sept. 20 that stopping the payment of religious taxes was "a serious lapse" and those who did so would then be excluded from a range of church activities.
"This decree makes clear that one cannot partly leave the Church," the bishops said in a statement. "It is not possible to separate the spiritual community of the Church from the institutional Church."
Wavering Catholics will now be sent letters reminding them of the consequences of avoiding the church tax, including losing access to all sacraments.
"Maybe you haven't considered the consequences of your decision and would like to reverse this step," a draft of the letter states.
Protestants
have taken a less stern position, saying non-taxpayers are still
welcome to attend services and take communion. But becoming a
godparent, getting married in a church or taking a job in
church-affiliated institutions such as hospitals or kindergartens are off-limits to those who stop paying their taxes.
In Italy, tax-payers have the choice of diverting a small part of their income taxes to religious institutions, including the Catholic Church and the country's Jewish community, but the contribution is voluntary.
In none of those countries have the churches taken such a firm stand against dropouts.
So far German courts have stood by the bishops' decision. This week the country's top administrative court threw out a lawsuit against the archdiocese of Freiburg by retired theologian Hartmut Zapp, who has spent years fighting the Catholic Church over the tax.
Zapp argued that a Catholic should be free to stop paying but remain a member of the spiritual community and that his religious beliefs could not possibly be tied to a tax payment.
The archdiocese responded in a statement that "those who lack solidarity bid farewell to the community of believers."
The tax issue presents moral and ethical dilemmas to millions of German believers, even dividing couples.
Sonja
Trott, a 34-year-old teacher from Munich, said she quit the Catholic
Church 15 years ago because she no longer believed in its teachings.
But
her husband, Christoph, a sales executive, says he cannot imagine
refusing to pay on moral grounds because it would seem like a betrayal
of his faith. "I don't like paying it, but I do because I fear the step
of quitting the church."
He
would prefer to donate part of the money to charities "but well, in
Germany the payment determines whether I'm allowed to consider myself a
Catholic or not."
For other Germans, it's unethical to stop paying the tax but continue to use the church when it suits them.
Christine
Solf, a Munich-based consultant, says she doesn't attend services
regularly but appreciates the church's charitable work. For her, church
membership is also a family tradition.
"I
know people who quit for financial reasons but then still want their
children to be baptized. That's not OK in my opinion," she said.
Capitalism Versus Sodomy, or Money can't buy you moral rectitude.
From Roto-Reuters:
"War veterans from the U.S., someone from Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, from Istanbul, South America, Portugal, really just from all over the world," said Chao, sifting through emails on a white Apple laptop in her father's high-rise office tower.
One suitor from the United States wrote: "I'm interested in your offer to wed your daughter, who also happens to be gay. I am a male person, who also happens to be gay."
Another put up his brother, a body double to George Clooney in the 2008 sports flick "Leatherheads" as a potential mate: "He could be the picture perfect date that your father craves."
"I've tried my best to respond to well-meaning ones ... but most of them I just try not to open," added the frizzy-haired Chao, who was wearing a silver ring after what she called a "church blessing" with her girlfriend in a Paris church.
Gigi said her billionaire father, who drives a Rolls Royce and flies a helicopter but had a poor early childhood in Shanghai, had been upset when his daughter's longtime lover revealed the couple had wed in Paris in April, leading to his impromptu HK$500 million "marriage bounty" offer to any man able to set her straight.
Gigi sounds pretty cool for someone suffering from same-sex attraction disorder.
Her 76-year-old father, rarely seen without sunglasses and brand-name clothes, has never married but has boasted of bedding over 10,000 women including models and starlets.
That explains it. Citizen Chao gets what he deserves. Put away the checkbook, pervert.
BTW, Wilt Chamberlain is not REPEAT NOT a role model, kiddies.
Suitors bombard tycoon's 'gay' daughter after marriage bounty offered
The newly married lesbian daughter of a Hong Kong tycoon who offered a $65 million "marriage bounty" to any man able to win her love, on Thursday said she'd been flooded by marriage proposals but harbored no animosity towards her father.
That's either very mature and magnanimous on her part or she thinks she has to play nice to inherit the whole company someday.
Since Hong Kong property
billionaire Cecil Chao, known in the tabloid media for his prolific
womanizing, dangled a $65 million reward for any man able to lead his
daughter, Gigi Chao, down the aisle, she says she's been bombarded by
marriage proposals from strangers, date requests, and even an offer from
a Hollywood film producer to buy her story.
"War veterans from the U.S., someone from Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, from Istanbul, South America, Portugal, really just from all over the world," said Chao, sifting through emails on a white Apple laptop in her father's high-rise office tower.
One suitor from the United States wrote: "I'm interested in your offer to wed your daughter, who also happens to be gay. I am a male person, who also happens to be gay."
Another put up his brother, a body double to George Clooney in the 2008 sports flick "Leatherheads" as a potential mate: "He could be the picture perfect date that your father craves."
"I've tried my best to respond to well-meaning ones ... but most of them I just try not to open," added the frizzy-haired Chao, who was wearing a silver ring after what she called a "church blessing" with her girlfriend in a Paris church.
Gigi said her billionaire father, who drives a Rolls Royce and flies a helicopter but had a poor early childhood in Shanghai, had been upset when his daughter's longtime lover revealed the couple had wed in Paris in April, leading to his impromptu HK$500 million "marriage bounty" offer to any man able to set her straight.
"I wasn't angry at all. I was
really quite touched, very touched and very ... how should I say?
moved, by Daddy's announcement," said the 33-year-old.
"I mean, it's really his way
of saying 'baby girl, I love you. You deserve more,' basically," added
Chau who works as an executive director in the family firm Cheuk Nang
Holdings.
Wow. Really?
Wow. Really?
Gigi sounds pretty cool for someone suffering from same-sex attraction disorder.
Her 76-year-old father, rarely seen without sunglasses and brand-name clothes, has never married but has boasted of bedding over 10,000 women including models and starlets.
That explains it. Citizen Chao gets what he deserves. Put away the checkbook, pervert.
BTW, Wilt Chamberlain is not REPEAT NOT a role model, kiddies.
Hong Kong, a freewheeling
city that reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997, retains a
traditional Chinese social fabric but is considered relatively tolerant
of alternative lifestyles compared with the rest of Asia. It
decriminalized homosexuality in 1991.
It has gay social venues,
film festivals and gay pride parades, making it a bastion of liberalism
compared with China, where homosexuality was defined as a mental
disorder until 2001.
"I'm not able to generalize
about the experiences of all people in the gay community, but I think we
in Hong Kong at the moment, are in the middle, we're not punishable by
death for being gay, but it's not celebrated and obviously never
encouraged," said Chao. "I think change is overdue."
Some hope the comedy value of
the whole high-profile father daughter drama could help start a
constructive dialogue about gay attitudes in the region.
"Starting a conversation with
humor always makes people less aggressive," said James Gannaban, the
organizer of an annual Mr. Gay Hong Kong pageant, in a local gay bar.
"If people are less militant about issues, then there is greater
opportunity for conversation, if we start off with a smile."
Did you ever wonder why and how Democrasses keep black folks in chains? Ann Coulter knows.
From Human Events:
Liberals Can't Break Their 200--Year Racism Habit
Ann Coulter
Democrats spent the first century of this country’s existence refusing to treat black people like human beings, and the second refusing to treat them like adults.
After fighting the Civil War to continue enslaving black people and then subjecting newly freed black Americans to vicious, humiliating Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan violence, Democrats set about frantically rewriting their own ugly history.
Step 1: Switch “Democrat” to “Southerner”;
Step 2: Switch “Southerner” to “conservative Democrat”;
Step 3: Switch “conservative Democrat” to “conservative.”
Contrary to liberal folklore, the Democratic segregationists were not all Southern — and they were certainly not conservative. They were dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats on all the litmus-test issues of their day.
All but one remained liberal Democrats until the day they died. That’s the only one you’ve ever heard of: Strom Thurmond.
As soon as abortion is relegated to the same trash heap of history as slavery has been, liberals will be rewriting history to make Democrats the pro-lifers and Republicans the pro-choicers. That’s precisely what they’ve done with the history of race in America.
In addition to lying in the history books, liberals lied on their personal resumes. Suddenly, every liberal remembered being beaten up by a 300-pound Southern sheriff during the civil rights movement.
Among the ones who have been caught falsely gassing about their civil rights heroism are Bob Beckel, Carl Bernstein and Joseph Ellis. (Some days, it seems as if there are more liberals pretending to have been Freedom Riders than pretending to be Cherokees!)
In the 1950s and ’60s, Democrats were running segregationists for vice president, slapping Orval Faubus on the back and praising George Wallace voters for their “integrity.” (That was Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in The New York Times.)
But the moment the real civil rights struggle was over, liberals decided to become black America’s most self-important defenders.
Of course, once we got the Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks, there was no one else doing it. So liberals developed a rich fantasy life in which they played Atticus Finch and some poor white cop from Brooklyn would be designated Lester Maddox (racist Democrat, endorsed by Jimmy Carter).
White journalists who didn’t know any actual black people (other than Grady the maid) became junior G-men searching for racists under every bed, requiring a steady stream of deeply pompous editorials.
You will never see anything so brave as a liberal fighting nonexistent enemies.
Liberals drove the entire country crazy with their endless battles against imaginary racists, to make up for their having been AWOL during the real fight over civil rights.
Throughout this period, every black-on-white crime became a re-enactment of “To Kill a Mockingbird”; every cop who shot a black perp was Bull Connor; and every alleged racist incident was instantly presumed true, no matter how preposterous.
When it turned out the hate crime was a hoax, the cop was being mugged and the black kid was guilty, the whole story would just quietly disappear from the news, as if the media were reading a bedtime story to a child, whispering the ending and tiptoeing out of the room.
Then came the O.J. verdict.
Millions of Americans watched as a mostly black jury acquitted an obviously guilty black celebrity and saw black America cheer the verdict. The sight of black law students whooping and applauding O.J.’s acquittal had the same emotional impact as watching Palestinians celebrate the 9/11 attack.
Overnight, the white guilt bank — once thought “too big to fail” — was shut down. Henceforth, instead of producing stuttering embarrassment, liberal moral intimidation on race produced only eye-rolling. With that, America became a much healthier country, especially for black people.
Without nonsense claims of racist “code words” to stop them, Republicans were finally able to implement long-sought reforms on crime and welfare. The unqualified success of Rudy Giuliani’s crime policies in New York saved tens of thousands of black lives. Welfare reform was such a stunning success that Bill Clinton claimed credit for it.
Blacks had won the final civil rights battle: The right to be treated like adults. Even liberals ceased their oohing and ahhing over every little thing any black person did.
But the post-O.J. paradise came to a crashing halt with the appearance of Barack Obama.
Obama allowed liberals to return to accusing Americans of being racists and get the most liberal president America has ever seen at the same time.
The only firm evidence that there are any actual racists left in America is the fact that so many whites voted for Obama as some sort of racial penance.
More white people voted for Obama in 2008 than had voted for any Democratic presidential candidate in nearly 40 years.
They must have felt guilty about something. Not harboring any racist impulses, I was free to vote Republican.
Now that Obama is up for re-election, liberals are back to their old tricks. A nation with more child pornographers than racists — a nation that’s already elected a (half) black president once — is suddenly said to be bristling with racists again!
My new book, out this week, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama,” reminds us that nothing good has ever come of Americans capitulating to liberals’ racial bullying, especially not for black people. Never. Don’t make the same mistake again, America.
More from Ann and Human Events:
Matthews A Few Race Cards Short Of A Full Deck
Apparently, Monday, Aug. 27, was opening day for Hysterical Liberal
Sanctimony About Imagined Republican Racism. During this first round,
The New York Times, The Atlantic and the TV networks each put in a
splendid showing.I’d need a book to cover it all. HOLD ON! I HAVE ONE — Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama available in fine bookstores near you Sept. 25, 2012.
Today, we will focus on the outstanding individual performance of the man who, since the departure of Contessa Brewer, is widely regarded by his colleagues as the stupidest on-air personality at MSNBC. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chris Matthews.
Today, we will focus on the outstanding individual performance of the man who, since the departure of Contessa Brewer, is widely regarded by his colleagues as the stupidest on-air personality at MSNBC. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chris Matthews.
Appearing on “Morning Joe,” Matthews exploded at Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, alleging that Mitt Romney’s harmless birth certificate joke from a few days earlier was a “cheap shot,” “awful,” and an example of the Republicans playing “that card.”
(Discussing his hometown roots while campaigning in Michigan, Romney had cited the local hospitals where he and his wife were born, adding, “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.”)
Even the liberals on the show were perplexed. Asked to clarify whether he considered the birth certificate joke “playing the race card,” Matthews angrily said: “Yeah, there’s no doubt he did with his birth certificate. No doubt. Why would he bring it up? Why would he say, ‘I have no problem with my birth certificate’? What’s that supposed to say?”
Joe Scarborough: “Because he misfired badly on the joke?”
But Matthews didn’t have time for alternative explanations. Besides, he had already yelled at Joe and Mika, so the issue was obviously resolved. Chris quickly moved on to Romney’s ads describing the Obama administration’s change to welfare requirements as another example of racism.
Matthews said that Romney’s (factually correct) claim that Barack Obama is weakening the work requirement for welfare was “playing that card,” fuming at the RNC chair, “and you are playing that little ethnic card there.” Priebus, like most people who haven’t spent much time around Matthews, could only laugh awkwardly.
Matthews raged: “You can — you play your games and giggle about it, but the fact is your side is playing that card. You start talking about work requirements, you know what game you’re playing and everybody knows what game you’re playing. It’s a race card.”
Asked by Scarborough if he really believed that the welfare ad was racist, Matthews said: “Of course it is. Welfare? Food stamps?”
On “Hardball” that night, Matthews continued his welfare rant: The Romney ad was “ethnically charged” and a “dog whistle.” (The phrase “dog whistle” is a dog whistle for imaginary sightings of racism.)
For the clincher, Matthews added: “Did you catch Romney following it up by saying this was Obama’s effort to excite and shore up his base, passing out welfare checks? His base.”
As everyone but Chris knows, the “base” Romney referred to consists not of individuals collecting welfare, but those distributing it, i.e.: union-dues-paying government workers. Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.
When welfare reform was first proposed in 1994:
– Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute said the reforms would sever Democratic ties to the liberal “base,” which he described as: “Congress, the interest groups that cluster around them, the bureaucracies that work closely with them, the social service providers and experts and think tank types.”
– Robert Kuttner of the uber-liberal American Prospect magazine wrote that welfare reform would hurt Bill Clinton with “the Democratic base.”
– Liberal journalist Jeff Greenfield of ABC News said that Clinton’s becoming a third-way, New Democrat would risk “alienating a liberal base.”
I’m sorry, gentlemen, but it is my sad duty to inform you: You’re all racists.
The next night on “Hardball,” Matthews made his most dramatic announcement yet! It seems the mention of “Chicago” in relation to the president is also a racist dog whistle.
Matthews: “They keep saying Chicago, by the way, you noticed?”?
Guest John Heilemann, like an orderly in a mental institution trapped alone with a patient, played along, responding, “Well, there’s a lot of black people in Chicago” — while frantically jabbing at the alarm button.
For the love of Pete, can’t we all acknowledge that a reference to “Chicago” in this context manifestly refers to corrupt, big-city, machine politics and 1920s gangsterism — not race? No one thinks Al Capone was an African-American.
My advice to Chris is: Pace yourself. It’s a long way to Election Day. If you get too crazy, too soon, you’ll have nothing left for the fourth quarter.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Lyin'-ass bitch in the White [Racist.] House.
From Karl Rove at Rove.com:
Obama's Biggest Opponent Is the Truth
When George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney in a Sept. 14 "Good Morning America" interview what he's learned about President Obama as a debater, the former Massachusetts governor replied, "I think he's going to say a lot of things that aren't accurate."
If Mr. Obama's debate performance mirrors his campaign, Mr. Romney's
prediction will be dead on. To get a sense of how comprehensive the
president's assault on the truth has been, consider some of his false
claims in recent speeches and ads.
One Obama spot says, "To pay for huge, new tax breaks for millionaires like him, Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class: $2,000 for a family with children."
That claim has been thoroughly discredited, including by PolitiFact Virginia and editorials in this newspaper. Mr. Romney, unlike the president, is committed to cutting taxes for everyone, including the middle class.
Another ad says, "As a corporate raider, [Mr. Romney] shipped jobs to China and Mexico." In response, the Washington Post editorialized, "On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue." As recently as Sept. 17, Mr. Obama claimed in Ohio that Mr. Romney's "experience has been owning companies that were called 'pioneers' in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like China." But that claim, too, is a fabrication.
There is more. An Obama ad aimed at northern Virginia women intones, "Mitt Romney opposes requiring coverage for contraception." In fact, Mr. Romney opposes the president's unprecedented assault on religious liberties—in this case, the federal government forcing religious institutions (like church-sponsored hospitals, schools and charities) to provide insurance coverage for contraception in violation of their fundamental moral values and, incidentally, the First Amendment.
Candidates always have disagreements, arguing over the meaning of events or evidence. But Mr. Obama has taken ordinary political differences beyond anything we've seen. Every day, it seems, he attempts to disqualify his opponent through deliberate and undeniable falsehoods.
This is only one side of a two-sided coin. The president can't tell the truth about his own record either.
For example, Mr. Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on Sept. 20 that his biggest failure "is we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done." The president then did what is second nature to him: He pinned the blame on Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency—and Mr. Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.
In the same interview, Mr. Obama claimed that his Justice Department's botched "Fast and Furious" gunrunning program was "begun under the previous administration." This time it was ABC's Jake Tapper correcting the record, pointing out, "it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."
The most troubling recent example of Mr. Obama's serial dishonesty is his administration's effort to deny that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist assault, as if the truth would somehow tarnish Mr. Obama's foreign-policy credentials.
Voters expect politicians to stretch the truth. But when the offender is as persistent with mistruths, half-truths and no-truths as Mr. Obama is, voters expect the other candidate to blow the whistle. They want their leaders to show toughness and be competitive. Which brings us back to the coming Oct. 3 debate, to be followed by two others on Oct. 16 and 22.
During these widely watched events, Mr. Romney must call out the president. That is not so easy: Mr. Romney can't call Mr. Obama a liar; that's too harsh a word that would backfire. Mr. Romney must instead set the record straight in a presidential tone—firm, respectful, but not deferential. And a dash of humor is worth its weight in gold.
While Mr. Romney must point out the president's misrepresentations, he can't take on the role of fact-checker-in-chief. He should deal comprehensively with several of Mr. Obama's untruths and, having done so, dismiss the rest as more of the same.
By carefully calling into question the president's veracity, Mr. Romney will have the opportunity to provide context: Mr. Obama doesn't shoot straight because he can't defend his record and has no agenda for the future except the status quo, stay the course.
What exactly about the past four years do Americans like? And why would they want four more years like them? Mr. Obama knows how most Americans would answer these questions, which is why he is being so fast and loose with the truth. Mr. Romney's job is to shine a light on this for voters.
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, September 27, 2012.
One Obama spot says, "To pay for huge, new tax breaks for millionaires like him, Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class: $2,000 for a family with children."
That claim has been thoroughly discredited, including by PolitiFact Virginia and editorials in this newspaper. Mr. Romney, unlike the president, is committed to cutting taxes for everyone, including the middle class.
Another ad says, "As a corporate raider, [Mr. Romney] shipped jobs to China and Mexico." In response, the Washington Post editorialized, "On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue." As recently as Sept. 17, Mr. Obama claimed in Ohio that Mr. Romney's "experience has been owning companies that were called 'pioneers' in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like China." But that claim, too, is a fabrication.
There is more. An Obama ad aimed at northern Virginia women intones, "Mitt Romney opposes requiring coverage for contraception." In fact, Mr. Romney opposes the president's unprecedented assault on religious liberties—in this case, the federal government forcing religious institutions (like church-sponsored hospitals, schools and charities) to provide insurance coverage for contraception in violation of their fundamental moral values and, incidentally, the First Amendment.
Candidates always have disagreements, arguing over the meaning of events or evidence. But Mr. Obama has taken ordinary political differences beyond anything we've seen. Every day, it seems, he attempts to disqualify his opponent through deliberate and undeniable falsehoods.
This is only one side of a two-sided coin. The president can't tell the truth about his own record either.
For example, Mr. Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on Sept. 20 that his biggest failure "is we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done." The president then did what is second nature to him: He pinned the blame on Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency—and Mr. Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.
In the same interview, Mr. Obama claimed that his Justice Department's botched "Fast and Furious" gunrunning program was "begun under the previous administration." This time it was ABC's Jake Tapper correcting the record, pointing out, "it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."
The most troubling recent example of Mr. Obama's serial dishonesty is his administration's effort to deny that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist assault, as if the truth would somehow tarnish Mr. Obama's foreign-policy credentials.
Voters expect politicians to stretch the truth. But when the offender is as persistent with mistruths, half-truths and no-truths as Mr. Obama is, voters expect the other candidate to blow the whistle. They want their leaders to show toughness and be competitive. Which brings us back to the coming Oct. 3 debate, to be followed by two others on Oct. 16 and 22.
During these widely watched events, Mr. Romney must call out the president. That is not so easy: Mr. Romney can't call Mr. Obama a liar; that's too harsh a word that would backfire. Mr. Romney must instead set the record straight in a presidential tone—firm, respectful, but not deferential. And a dash of humor is worth its weight in gold.
While Mr. Romney must point out the president's misrepresentations, he can't take on the role of fact-checker-in-chief. He should deal comprehensively with several of Mr. Obama's untruths and, having done so, dismiss the rest as more of the same.
By carefully calling into question the president's veracity, Mr. Romney will have the opportunity to provide context: Mr. Obama doesn't shoot straight because he can't defend his record and has no agenda for the future except the status quo, stay the course.
What exactly about the past four years do Americans like? And why would they want four more years like them? Mr. Obama knows how most Americans would answer these questions, which is why he is being so fast and loose with the truth. Mr. Romney's job is to shine a light on this for voters.
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, September 27, 2012.
Brave Christians look Leviathan in the eye and dare it to throw them to the lions.
Talk to your priests, rabbis, and ministers, kiddies. Beg them to stand up for freedom from government hatred of God.
From Fox News:
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS --
decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal
counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional
challenge.”
Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.
“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
A spokeswoman for the IRS did not comment on the matter and instead referred all inquiries to the government’s online handbook
.
Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.
“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”
“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
From Fox News:
Pastors pledge to defy IRS, preach politics from pulpit ahead of election
More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.
“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
A spokeswoman for the IRS did not comment on the matter and instead referred all inquiries to the government’s online handbook
.Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.
“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”
“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
Emperor Haile Unlikely's fellow travelers believe they have fixed the race by brainwashing the rubes...
...but just in case Americans turn out to be a bit smarter, they will continue to hedge their bets.
"Big Commie Lead in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia" read the stories about the scientific polls paid for by the AmericaLast pinkos, but notice how the national polls they conduct are too close to call.
Take it from someone who's been there, kiddies: polls can be made to say whatever you want them to say.
From National Journal via Yahoo News:
The debate has been amplified as the pace of public polling has
accelerated after party conventions. Pollsters are finding diverging
results, with consumers of political media left to decide which surveys
better reflect the reality on the ground -- or to accept the polls most
favorable to their partisan leanings. New, less expensive methods for
taking polls have led to a proliferation of surveys with varying
results, so both sides have ample data to fit their desired narrative.
Gripes about the party-ID composition of poll samples are certainly not new: Eight years ago, Democrats were claiming polls showing a surge in Republican identification did not accurately reflect the makeup of the electorate.
Now, it's Republicans making the case their voters are undersampled.
Schwartz, whose institute conducts polls in battleground states for CBS News and The New York Times, asserts that pollsters who weight according to party identification could miss the sorts of important shifts in the electorate that could be determinative.
"A good example for why pollsters shouldn't weight by party ID is if you look at the 2008 presidential election and compared it to the 2004 presidential election, there was a 7-point change in the party ID gap," Schwartz said. Democrats and Republicans represented equal portions of the 2004 electorate, according to exit polls. But, in 2008, the percentage of the electorate identifying as Democrats increased by 2 percentage points, to 39 percent, while Republicans dropped 5 points, to 32 percent.
John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster and consultant to GOP candidates, told the conservative National Review last week that Democrats are lobbying media pollsters "to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models."
"The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias," McLaughlin said.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., is unconvinced. "Why would pollsters want to look inaccurate?" Miringoff asked rhetorically in a phone interview.
Miringoff, who is conducting three battleground-state polls each week for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, called the focus on party identification "too narrow."
"Big Commie Lead in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia" read the stories about the scientific polls paid for by the AmericaLast pinkos, but notice how the national polls they conduct are too close to call.
Take it from someone who's been there, kiddies: polls can be made to say whatever you want them to say.
From National Journal via Yahoo News:
It has become a recurring refrain among some Republican pundits and observers each time a new poll shows President Obama or downballot Democrats doing well: Check the party composition.
Critics allege that pollsters
are interviewing too many Democrats -- and too few Republicans or
independents -- and artificially inflating the Democratic candidates'
performance. Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect
slight changes in public sentiment -- and, moreover, adjusting their
polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be
unscientific.
Unlike race, gender or age, all demographic traits for which pollsters weight their samples, party identification
is considered an attitude that pollsters say they should be measuring.
When party identification numbers change, it's an indication of deeper
political change that a poll can spot.
"If a pollster weights by party ID, they are substituting their own judgment as to what the electorate is going to look like. It's not scientific," said Doug Schwartz, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which doesn't weight its surveys by party identification.
Gripes about the party-ID composition of poll samples are certainly not new: Eight years ago, Democrats were claiming polls showing a surge in Republican identification did not accurately reflect the makeup of the electorate.
Now, it's Republicans making the case their voters are undersampled.
Schwartz, whose institute conducts polls in battleground states for CBS News and The New York Times, asserts that pollsters who weight according to party identification could miss the sorts of important shifts in the electorate that could be determinative.
"A good example for why pollsters shouldn't weight by party ID is if you look at the 2008 presidential election and compared it to the 2004 presidential election, there was a 7-point change in the party ID gap," Schwartz said. Democrats and Republicans represented equal portions of the 2004 electorate, according to exit polls. But, in 2008, the percentage of the electorate identifying as Democrats increased by 2 percentage points, to 39 percent, while Republicans dropped 5 points, to 32 percent.
Asked specifically about GOP complaints regarding the party-ID composition of public surveys, Schwartz said: "They're the ones trailing in our swing-state polls."
"There are more people who want to identify with the Democratic Party right now than the Republican Party," he added.
Many Republicans, however, think pollsters are wrong to assume their results, which in some cases mirror the 2008 electorate, are accurate.
"Far too many of the public and media polls
have set their likely voter screens and models to something looking
more optimistic than the 2008 turnout model," GOP consultant Rick Wilson
wrote in Sunday's New York Daily News, "which even Obama's most dedicated partisans think is highly unlikely."
"The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias," McLaughlin said.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., is unconvinced. "Why would pollsters want to look inaccurate?" Miringoff asked rhetorically in a phone interview.
Miringoff, who is conducting three battleground-state polls each week for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, called the focus on party identification "too narrow."
"It's an easy target in a sense
because you can look at the last [election], see the difference and jump
on board," he said. Marist, like Quinnipiac, does not weight its
results according to party ID.
Not
every Republican pollster finds fault with the publicly-available
surveys. Dan Judy, vice president of North Star Opinion Research in
Alexandria, Va., told National Journal, "A lot of the media organizations this cycle seem to have gotten better."
"Most of the media polls are
good, professional polls," Judy added, "in terms of making sure that the
way their samples are constructed are fairly consistent."
But the GOP narrative that most public surveys are biased endures. On Monday, the news website Buzzfeed interviewed a Virginia-based blogger
who re-weights public polls to reflect the partisan trends reported by
automated pollster Rasmussen Reports. Dean Chambers, the blogger, then
presents the adjusted data in charts on his website, unskewedpolls.com.
As of late Monday, Chambers'
website claimed that an average of polls conducted since Labor Day show
Mitt Romney leading Obama, 52 percent to 44 percent. The website and its
findings were trumpeted on the Drudge Report, the conservative-leaning
news-aggregation site that has tended to highlight polls more favorable
to Romney and less favorable to the president.
The pollsters continue to stand
by their results, but the complaints are nevertheless getting through.
Marist's Miringoff, for instance, was lambasted by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt earlier this month over a poll in Hewitt's native Ohio that the radio jock deemed "biased" for its 10-point party-ID advantage for Democrats. Miringoff admitted to National Journal that he is now taking note of the party-identification results in the polls he is conducting.
"I look at our party-ID spread
because I want to anticipate the reaction," he said. He added: "I guess
it makes for good pundit sport at this point."
Nate Silver: Obama The Clear Favorite, But We Could Be Surprised
Nate Silver -- author of "The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail--But Some Don't" and polling
guru for the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog-- recently spoke to
TPM about the state of the election, what makes a good forecaster, and
the experience of writing his first book. Which pollsters do you think
have most accurately captured the state of the race to this point? I
think ...
- TPM via Yahoo! News
By this time next week, there should be enough national and state-level polling
data to present a pretty clear picture of where this election stands,
post-Labor Day and after whatever bounces the candidates may have gotten
from the conventions. But we have seen enough data in recent weeks to draw some preliminary conclusions about the contests for the White House, the Senate, and, to a lesser ...
- National Journal via Yahoo! News Oliver North on the 'Innocence of Muslims'nand the guilt of Okhrana.
Have you noticed how Mr. Mulatto and the AmericaLast Media depend upon perpetuating the racist stereotype of mohammedans as mindless, bloodthirsty savages who fly into murderous rages at the drop of a cartoon in order to cling to power?
From The Washington Times:
Ever since the deadly and destructive Sept. 11, 2012, anti-American attacks in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and more than two dozen other countries, the Obama White House has sought to lay blame on someone else. The O-Team — and the perpetrators — have had a lot of help from the useful idiots in the mainstream media. The disinformation campaign being waged by the Obama administration over the cause of this violence would be comedic but for the fact that six Americans have been killed and dozens have been injured.
From the perspective of many “covering” this story, the global jihad we’re witnessing is mostly the fault of an incompetent filmmaker and the “spontaneous outrage” is over a “provocative video.” Notably, the same is being said about protests against French diplomatic posts in the Middle East because “obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” were published in a French magazine. What’s really obscene is the way all of this has been covered by the potentates of the press — particularly the events in Cairo; Benghazi, Libya; and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Embassy in Cairo was first off the block — issuing an apology for a poorly made Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Though the video was shot in 2011 — not by an Israeli, as first reported, but by an Egyptian living in the U.S. — it attracted almost no attention when brief segments first appeared on the Internet in July 2012. The Obama administration continues to tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other Islamic radical groups in 30 countries just happened to come across the “offensive video” on the 11th anniversary of the devastating Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 of our countrymen.
That alone requires a willful suspension of disbelief by anyone at all familiar with reality. Only a tiny fraction of the young men assaulting our diplomatic posts, military installations and U.S. businesses and killing Americans have seen what the White House and our State Department have described as a “disgusting,” “insulting” and “distasteful” movie. Yet major networks and print outlets continue to parrot the administration’s propaganda. If a Republican were in the Oval Office, the press would be calling it a cover-up.
The failure of the media stars to ask questions and demand answers is particularly egregious in two cases: the “spontaneous” attack on our consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed on the night of Sept. 11, and the attack in Afghanistan in which two U.S. Marines were killed during a ground assault at Camp Leatherneck/Bastion. Both of those events warrant questions — and answers — as to how they could have happened.
For nine days, the Obama administration — including Susan Rice, our ambassador to the United Nations — refused even to describe what had happened at our Benghazi consulate as a terrorist attack. The White House and State Department insisted that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in an “unplanned attack” during a protest prompted by the offensive video and that there “was no intelligence about any threat in Libya.” Of course, that narrative exonerates the administration from a failure to plan for radical Islamic “anniversary attacks” on Sept. 11.
We now know that’s not what happened. As Catherine Herridge at Fox News discovered, there was intelligence about a possible terrorist attack in Libya two days before the event, and it was unrelated to the infamous video. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating the “discrepancies” between the O-Team’s story line and the events on the ground. There are a number of additional questions that should be asked and answered:
Why was our ambassador to Libya in Benghazi, not Tripoli, on the eve of the Sept. 11 anniversary?
Who decided to delay placing U.S. Marine embassy security guards at our Libyan diplomatic missions?
Who made the decision to have our ambassador accompanied by such a small personal security detail on the trip to Benghazi, and when was it made?
Other than the Americans at the consulate, who else knew about the ambassador’s visit to Benghazi?
If the vaunted Obama national security team didn’t prepare adequately for the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, Congress and the American people deserve to know. But they can’t use “we just didn’t know” or the “spontaneous outrage” excuses for what happened on the night of Sept. 13 at Camp Leatherneck/Bastion.
Nobody is saying the well-executed assault that killed two U.S. Marines was anything but well-planned. The enemy employed well-aimed indirect fire, automatic weapons and a suicide assault against the 1,600-acre U.S.-British base in Helmand province. The number of aircraft damaged and destroyed is staggering.
We were told the Arab Spring was going to make things better. President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize said as much. For all of what has transpired since Sept. 11, 2012, there is one overriding question that needs to be asked and answered: How could this happen?
Oliver North is host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of “American Heroes in Special Operations” (Fidelis, 2010).
From The Washington Times:
'Innocence of Muslims' was just a cover-up
Ever since the deadly and destructive Sept. 11, 2012, anti-American attacks in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and more than two dozen other countries, the Obama White House has sought to lay blame on someone else. The O-Team — and the perpetrators — have had a lot of help from the useful idiots in the mainstream media. The disinformation campaign being waged by the Obama administration over the cause of this violence would be comedic but for the fact that six Americans have been killed and dozens have been injured.
From the perspective of many “covering” this story, the global jihad we’re witnessing is mostly the fault of an incompetent filmmaker and the “spontaneous outrage” is over a “provocative video.” Notably, the same is being said about protests against French diplomatic posts in the Middle East because “obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” were published in a French magazine. What’s really obscene is the way all of this has been covered by the potentates of the press — particularly the events in Cairo; Benghazi, Libya; and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Embassy in Cairo was first off the block — issuing an apology for a poorly made Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Though the video was shot in 2011 — not by an Israeli, as first reported, but by an Egyptian living in the U.S. — it attracted almost no attention when brief segments first appeared on the Internet in July 2012. The Obama administration continues to tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other Islamic radical groups in 30 countries just happened to come across the “offensive video” on the 11th anniversary of the devastating Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 of our countrymen.
That alone requires a willful suspension of disbelief by anyone at all familiar with reality. Only a tiny fraction of the young men assaulting our diplomatic posts, military installations and U.S. businesses and killing Americans have seen what the White House and our State Department have described as a “disgusting,” “insulting” and “distasteful” movie. Yet major networks and print outlets continue to parrot the administration’s propaganda. If a Republican were in the Oval Office, the press would be calling it a cover-up.
The failure of the media stars to ask questions and demand answers is particularly egregious in two cases: the “spontaneous” attack on our consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed on the night of Sept. 11, and the attack in Afghanistan in which two U.S. Marines were killed during a ground assault at Camp Leatherneck/Bastion. Both of those events warrant questions — and answers — as to how they could have happened.
For nine days, the Obama administration — including Susan Rice, our ambassador to the United Nations — refused even to describe what had happened at our Benghazi consulate as a terrorist attack. The White House and State Department insisted that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in an “unplanned attack” during a protest prompted by the offensive video and that there “was no intelligence about any threat in Libya.” Of course, that narrative exonerates the administration from a failure to plan for radical Islamic “anniversary attacks” on Sept. 11.
We now know that’s not what happened. As Catherine Herridge at Fox News discovered, there was intelligence about a possible terrorist attack in Libya two days before the event, and it was unrelated to the infamous video. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating the “discrepancies” between the O-Team’s story line and the events on the ground. There are a number of additional questions that should be asked and answered:
Why was our ambassador to Libya in Benghazi, not Tripoli, on the eve of the Sept. 11 anniversary?
Who decided to delay placing U.S. Marine embassy security guards at our Libyan diplomatic missions?
Who made the decision to have our ambassador accompanied by such a small personal security detail on the trip to Benghazi, and when was it made?
Other than the Americans at the consulate, who else knew about the ambassador’s visit to Benghazi?
If the vaunted Obama national security team didn’t prepare adequately for the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, Congress and the American people deserve to know. But they can’t use “we just didn’t know” or the “spontaneous outrage” excuses for what happened on the night of Sept. 13 at Camp Leatherneck/Bastion.
Nobody is saying the well-executed assault that killed two U.S. Marines was anything but well-planned. The enemy employed well-aimed indirect fire, automatic weapons and a suicide assault against the 1,600-acre U.S.-British base in Helmand province. The number of aircraft damaged and destroyed is staggering.
We were told the Arab Spring was going to make things better. President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize said as much. For all of what has transpired since Sept. 11, 2012, there is one overriding question that needs to be asked and answered: How could this happen?
Oliver North is host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of “American Heroes in Special Operations” (Fidelis, 2010).
America's favorite mass murderer and thief tries to yuck it up.
From Roto-Reuters:
Obama flubs line on jobs, says he's 'channeling' Romney
President Barack Obama flubbed a line during a campaign speech on Wednesday, mistakenly saying he wanted to export U.S. jobs, before correcting himself and jokingly blaming Republican rival Mitt Romney.
In the middle of
remarks to an enthusiastic crowd in the battleground state of Ohio,
Obama was describing a five-point plan to boost employment and lay a
"stronger foundation" for the U.S. economy when he stumbled at a crucial
word.
"I want to see us
export more jobs," Obama said, before catching himself quickly and
saying, "Export more products."