Vocal Minority

Surprise Surprise: Anti-Semitism Finds Home in Hard-Left Democrat Party

A relative alerted me to this weekend story from the Jerusalem Post.

Nov 22, 2009 22:34 | Updated Nov 23, 2009 11:10
What a difference 35 years make
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN

In an October 1974 cable to Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, following passage of his legislation helping Soviet Jews emigrate, Israel’s Foreign Minister Yigal Allon wrote that “your efforts in this matter manifest once again your deep understanding of our needs and your constant support of the cause of Israel.” What a difference 35 years make.

Nowadays, liberal members of Jackson’s party routinely cast votes against Israel, while the leftist commentators supporting them relish vilifying the Jewish state. Whether it’s blasting the settlements, criticizing Israel’s Lebanon or Gaza conflicts, or deferring sanctions on Iran, the American Left is more unified than ever in its opposition to Israel and its policies. …

Took you long enough to wake up. I could have told you the left has been been the home to anti-Semitism for years.

Meanwhile, who did the Anti-Defamation League go after last week with charges of fomenting hate, violence, and potentially anti-Semitism? Glenn Beck! Why? Because he is a harsh critic of President Golden Calf's destructive policies and because he says, "I fear for my country." [h/t radio host Steve Malzberg]

It is a topsy-turvy world!

Diversity Lane (11/23/09)

There's been no time to blog all weekend and little time this week. In the meantime, enjoy the latest from Zack R. at the incredible Diversity Lane:

   

Around the Web in 80 Minutes: Palin "Going Rogue" Edition (11/20/09)

In all honesty, I was initially not planning to buy Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. It’s a personal trait of mine not to favor biographies or autobiographies/memoirs. I prefer books on political philosophy or events, rather than on an individual person. That’s just me. (One exception: Clarence Thomas’ autobiography My Grandfather's Son; Loved it!)

But I want the leftocracy—with the notable exception of Oprah Winfrey—to know that their continued bashing of this woman compelled me to purchase her book yesterday, and I am reading it with delight.

As the left continues to pound this woman and her new book, rather than do objective reporting, here are some retorts from the right:

Nov. 20, 2009 | National Review Online
Palinophobes Hate First, Ask Questions Later
By Jonah Goldberg

Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:

“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”

Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”

But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,’ written by Barack Obama.” [Whoops!]

Nov. 20, 2009 | Jewish World Review
Sally Quinn on Sarah Palin — Versus Reality
By David Limbaugh

… Of all the screeds I’ve read, I don’t think any are snarkier than The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn’s “On Faith” blog post “Sarah Palin’s ‘rogue’ Christianity.”

Do we need further proof of the secular orientation of our dominant media culture than the fact that Quinn, an avowed atheist, pens the Post’s “On Faith” blog? That would be like featuring a column by Fidel Castro on free enterprise and individual liberties. …

Quinn says: “Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she ‘put my life in my creator’s hands and trust Him as I sought my life’s path.’ For Palin, this grand divine plan was ‘a natural progression.’ She writes. And later, ‘I don’t believe in coincidences.’“

Quinn — convinced she has exposed Palin as confused, conflicted and acutely hypocritical — volleys a series of rhetorical questions designed to reveal Palin’s apparent inconsistency in believing that G0d is in complete control (“I don’t believe in coincidences”) and yet he allows or causes terrible things to happen to people.

Here’s a sampling of Quinn’s ill-informed, sneering arrogance: “Did G0d plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did G0d plan for her to step down. … Did G0d plan for her to have a huge wardrobe? Then why did she apologize for it? ... Did G0d plan for her daughter Bristol to get pregnant while she was a teenager? Why was she then not thrilled.”

Perhaps Quinn wouldn’t be so smug if she were to do the slightest bit of thinking or reading about the concepts of G0d’s sovereignty and free will — ideas that have challenged the finest minds for 2,000 years and contributed to denominational differences within evangelical Christianity. Has Quinn studied Calvin, Wesley, Luther or any other past or present theologian on these issues? …

Quinn is exercised at Palin for supposedly settling scores in her book and allegedly failing to exhibit the Christian qualities of “love, generosity, mercy and forgiveness.” But it’s my informed guess that Quinn’s contempt for Palin has nothing to do with these false charges or Palin’s alleged hypocrisy or even her theology but is rooted in Palin’s conservative ideology.

November 20, 2009 | Town Hall
Palin-Hating 101
by S. E. Cupp

… Newsweek, in advance of Palin’s book release, obviously went for subtlety. Their headline read, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s bad news for the GOP—and everybody else, too.” [As opposed to non-problems like the America-hating Barack Obama and his America-hating wife who adorned the cover of Newsweek several times since 2007; or the charlatan Al Gore, whose climate alarmism has made him filthy rich while threatening the prosperity of our nation] Accompanying it was a photo of her in running shorts used in a June 2009 Runner’s World spread. Newsweek’s message was clear: You are not to take this woman seriously. Never mind that Runner’s Week [sic] told me that the photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and that Newsweek ran the photo without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission. No biggie. [Typically, when you’re a liberal in the process of a conservative to smear, no rules apply, not morally and not legally. Stay classy, Newsweek.]

On “Hardball,” Chris Matthews, who’s still recovering from that bizarre bout of restless leg syndrome that suddenly befell him last year, actually had the audacity to say of the attention Palin is getting for her book release, “I’ve never seen hype like this.” Apparently, the overwrought sensationalism of the Denver Democratic National Convention, where Obama stood amidst faux White House columns, under fireworks, next to Sheryl Crow and Will.i.am—or “Hype and Change 2008”—is but a distant memory to Matthews.

In another segment, on another night, Matthews and MSNBC reporter Norah O’Donnell decided that the crowd at a Palin book signing was, well, too white. “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing. In other words, white vs. other people,” said Matthews, ever the sociology scholar.

The leftwing media has long tried to ascribe a scary nativism to Palin, who best described the phenomenon during her recent Oprah interview, when she said that Katie Couric had looked at her like she was part of some kind of nomadic tribe from Alaska. Asking her what she read was like asking her if she read. [If Couric et al. actually read Palin’s book, as I am currently doing, they will find out that Palin was raised on poetry. But, unlike elitist liberals, she doesn’t need to impress anyone by quoting any.]

Others have tried to carefully feign disinterest in the hopes that, much like the flu, disinterest is contagious. The Washington Post published a book review by Ana Marie Cox, in which she smugly “confesses” she didn’t have time to read the entire book, “It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.” In that one sentence, we know that Cox’s time constraints excuse wasn’t the issue. She simply wanted to be able to write in a book review that Palin’s book didn’t make her to-do list. Her anti-review review is fine for Cox, but what’s the Washington Post’s excuse for publishing it?

Others still have tried to dismiss Palin as some would-be celebrity, who—how dare she?!—had the gumption and considerable bad taste to write a book. And promote it. (Irony alert: Al Gore has his own television network.) …

But we don’t see the liberal press fretting over President Obama’s penchant for self-promotion. They coo when he goes on Letterman to talk about all the cool stuff that happens when you’re president—during a recession and a war. And they applaud his Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated after just 12 days in office. And they rally around his embarrassing Olympic bid, which actually argued that the IOC should choose Chicago so that he and Michelle could stop and see the fam while in their old neighborhood. Obama’s “me, me, me, me, me, me, me” aria is fine. But Palin’s plain-speaking and honest stab at defending herself against her seething critics is schlocky showboating and shameless self-promotion. Please. …

Have a blessed day!

Liberal Fascism: Commie-fornia Declares No TV's for You!

Here’s the latest abomination from the folks who put the “mental” in environmentalism. William Teach at Pirate’s Cove writes:

….And Then They Came For My TV

And I moved the fark out of California

Power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. [What about power-hungry politicians? When will they be banned? -ETR]

On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.

And then I found out that Los Federales did the same thing. And I was sad.

There will be three consequences of the Nannyfornia law. 1st, the costs will skyrocket for those that meet the standards. 2nd, people will go out of state, or even down to Mexico, to purchase their TV’s. 3rd, there will be fewer choices. I witnessed something similar first hand in NJ back in the day when they jacked the taxes on automobiles. So, people went to Pa., NY, and Delaware to purchase. Cars in NJ were on short supply. Dealers were going out of business. NJ repealed those taxes quickly, though. Something like this will never go away.

So in various (blue) states throughout the country, the rabid extremist left has succeeded in banning transfats, smoking indoors and in some areas even outdoors, and now banned certain TV’s. Oh yeah, it’s now against federal law not to utter “hate speech,” i.e., whatever speech some left-wing political hack disagrees with.

But remember, it’s the right that’s fascistic and imposes its values on you. Give me an effing break.

You know how pathetic it is that I’m not even 40 but I can still say to my kids “When I was your age this was a free country.”?

Pop Science Quiz

OK, kiddies, time play an old favorite. Here’s a picture of the planet Earth:

 

So far so good.

Now look at this photoshopped version and find six things that are scientifically wrong/untenable:

 

Answers:

1.The hurricane off the coast of Florida is spinning in the wrong direction. Hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere (like all low pressure storms) go counterclockwise.

2. The hurricane off of South America is almost on the equator, an impossibility for hurricanes.

Notice that there are four hurricanes on the map simultaneously? But despite the climate scare-mongers, the frequency and strength of hurricanes have been decreasing over the past few years and are currently at a 30-year low.

3. All of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is removed, but snow cover over Canada and Alaska remains.

4. The middle part of the Greenland ice sheet, the thickest part, is gone. Ice remains around the edges, where it's the thinnest.

5. Cuba is totally underwater, which would require a sea level rise of over 6,000 feet. This would mean the U.S. all the way up to Denver should be submerged as well.

6. Panama is underwater too, another impossibility given its height above sea level in comparison to other land masses not submerged.

I Hate the Media says:

For Panama to disappear beneath the waves would require sea levels to rise more than 11,400 feet (slightly more than the 14-inches anticipated by the IPCC report).

That sea level rise would leave only five towns in the entire world above water – Namache Bazaar, Nepal at 11,482 feet; Potosi, Bolivia at 13,420 feet; El Alto, Bolivia at 13,615 feet, Lhasa Tibet at 12,200 feet; and La Rinoconada, Peru at 16,728 feet. Denver, the Mile High City, would be a mile under water.

If, say, a middle school science student turned in this picture of the Earth to describe what the planet would look like due to man-made global warming climate change, he would get a freakin’ F for FAIL.

Too bad that picture is the cover of Al Gore’s new book, “Our Choice.”

And to think, just a couple weeks ago Newsweek called the Goracle the “thinking man’s thinking man.” Which makes both Gore and Newsweek pathetic.

Earlier this week, eleven crack “journalists” at the Associated Press combed Sarah Palin’s new book, only to discover six lies in 432 pages. Here we have on Al Gore’s new book six lies on the cover alone. Hey, AP, fact-check this!

Other posts on the Goracle’s latest photoshop adventure: Prison Planet; Dvorak Uncensored, Moonbattery

End the Occupation! Cynthia McKinney Preaches Hate and Silences Opposition at Binghamton

Last time former Georgia Democrat Congressman Cynthia McKinney made national news was in 2006, when she struck a Capitol police officer after the supposedly racist bastard had the audacity to stop her for failing to show I.D. But before that embarrassing display, McKinney had amassed a list of anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Semitic remarks. She is truly the embodiment of left-wing hate. 

The mainstream media is very good at reporting supposed right-wing anti-Semitism, like last month when two South Carolina Congressmen made the mistake of stereotyping Jews as being frugal with their money. But radical leftist anti-Semites—especially non-white ones—Louis Farrakhan comes to mind—the media tends to sweep under the rug.

It is also an unfortunate reality that leftist racists and anti-Semites are regular guests at universities, as painstakingly documented by David Horowitz et al. This was the case last week at my wife’s alma mater Binghamton University (formerly SUNY Binghamton). 

McKinney delivered anti-Semitic rant speech called “Black in America, Black in Palestine.” But if that wasn’t bad enough, all opposing views were suppressed via physical intimidation at the speech location and the theft of flyers alerting the Jewish community of McKinney’s visit.

Earlier this week, my wife received this email from the school’s Hillel organization informing alumni of what happened. Had my wife never received it, I would never have known these disgusting events took place:

Dear Friends,

By now, many of you have heard about a disturbing event that took place at Binghamton University on Tuesday, November 10th when former Congresswoman, and noted anti-Israel speaker, Cynthia McKinney came to campus. …

We are deeply saddened that our students were silenced by the event organizers and by physical intimidation. Throughout the evening, event coordinators threatened to remove anyone who offered a dissenting opinion, and during the question and answer period anyone who even hinted at a different point of view was either intimidated or embarrassed into silence. Student “bodyguards” were in place to prevent anyone who had an opposing viewpoint from speaking.

The Jewish campus community has been deeply affected by this incident.

We are concerned that the University’s statement in the above article does not go far enough. It does not condemn the physical intimidation used by event organizers. Furthermore, the University’s statement leaves students to work out conflicts amongst themselves, without University guidance and leadership about what constitutes civil discourse.

We will continue to work with the University to resolve these matters and make our opinions known. …

More details:

Pro-Israel fliers confiscated at campus speech
November 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Fliers distributed by Binghamton University Jewish students outside a campus speech by a critic of Israel were collected and confiscated by event organizers during the event.

Students from the Hillel Jewish Student Union at Binghamton passed out information outside auditorium doors before a Nov. 10 speech by former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney. The New York State university’s Hillel president, Rebecca Kohn, described the fliers as facts about Israel and Hamas and other points that they did not believe McKinney would address in her speech, which was titled “Black in America, Black in Palestine.”

But before McKinney spoke, leaders of the Binghamton Political Initiative, a graduate-student organized group, asked that anyone who had received a Hillel flier should pass them to the end of the row so they could be collected.

Kohn also said that during the question period, those who asked questions critical of McKinney’s views were quickly cut off or embarrassed. For example, when one pro-Israel questioner briefly stuttered from nerves, McKinney held up the flier that Hillel passed out and said, “Do you need this?”

An article by Hillel describing the events of the McKinney speech was printed as a letter to the editor in the campus newspaper last Friday. Kohn said Hillel was reaching out to the Binghamton Political Initiative to discuss the event. The event was co-sponsored by the Multicultural Resource Center and other campus organizations.

A university spokeswoman said Tuesday that school administrators had met with the Hillel director to discuss Jewish student concerns and said the school hoped that students could work out the issue among themselves.

“While the University defends the right of event organizers to determine the content of their programs, we hope and expect that all attendees at events held on campus will be treated respectfully regardless as to the extent of their agreement with the program’s message,” the university said in a statement. “When that does not occur, our response is to continue to work with students and student organizations to promote a more respectful community. Part of that work is helping students to develop the necessary tools to resolve disputes effectively amongst themselves.”

The statement also said that “student organizations are under no requirement to be neutral or balanced in their expressive activity and we have been made aware of concerns that the hosts of this event were not interested in presenting critiques of the guest speaker as part of the program. At Binghamton University, as at most campuses, those who stand in disagreement with a program’s message certainly have many alternative avenues available to them to express their own viewpoints including hosting their own events, letter writing campaigns and rallies.”

Kohn said that while the administration had met with the campus Hillel director, no one had met with any Jewish students. She said the university’s statement amounted to administrators saying that while they did not approve of the disrespect shown to attendees at the McKinney speech, they were not going to take any action.

McKinney, whose father famously blamed “J-E-W-S” when she was defeated in a race for re-election to her Atlanta-area congressional district in 2002, has most recently been involved in the Free Gaza movement. She was arrested last summer by Israel for attempting to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and called Israel’s operation in Gaza “full-scale, outright genocide.”

During her Binghamton speech, she made comparisons between Palestinians and blacks in America, and called Israel an apartheid state.

Binghamton Hillel published this response:

Response to Cynthia McKinney
Published Monday, November 16, 2009

by Hillel Executive Board

We write to you because our voices have been silenced.

Tuesday night former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney spoke at Binghamton University at an event sponsored by the Binghamton Political Initiative, the Walter Rodney Committee and other campus groups. While we expected her speech to be biased against Israel, based on her well-documented record of past presentations of this nature, we were utterly unprepared for our opposing points of view to be so forcefully suppressed.

As executive board members of Hillel at Binghamton and members of an academic community, we felt that it was our responsibility to educate our peers on all angles of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Therefore, we had spent the week leading up to the event preparing handouts with information representing various points of view that we believed would not be shared by Ms. McKinney.

To our shock, at the beginning of last night’s event, student coordinators were forcibly taking this information away from people. The moderator publicly announced that anyone who received handouts should pass them to the aisle for immediate confiscation. These actions are unacceptable. As students at an institution that promotes academic honesty, integrity, and truth, we are angered that our right to free speech was so clearly denied. Once we distributed the sheets, those who held them had the choice to read the information or disregard it, but it was in no way the coordinators’ or moderator’s right to aggressively take away that choice.

Throughout the evening, student coordinators threatened to remove anyone who offered a dissenting opinion, and during the question and answer period anyone who even hinted at a different point of view was either intimidated or embarrassed into silence. An extreme lack of respect was shown to anyone in attendance who did not wholeheartedly endorse Ms. McKinney’s presentation.

As representatives of the Jewish community on campus, we are outraged that our fellow students chose to bring a speaker to campus who has such a clear record of bigotry. MsMcKinney is strongly tied to the New Black Panther Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a “black racist” group and is decidedly anti-white and anti-semitic. In 2006,McKinney lost her seat in congress. “Following McKinney’s concession speech, a reporter attempted to ask the Congresswoman why she thought she lost. The New Black Panther member (part of McKinney’s security detail) interrupted, shouting, “Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate.” (Anti Defamation League Press Release, August 9, 2006)

We are deeply saddened by the fact that our peers who planned this event clearly had no desire for any real discourse other than the hate speech that was delivered to the audience. While we do not have to agree with one another, we do have a responsibility to respect one another and allow for the open exchange of opinions. Ms. McKinney’s visit to Binghamton was an affront to any multicultural efforts on campus. Furthermore, it insults the significant struggles that African-Americans went through to gain civil rights in the United States and the Jewish community’s support for those civil rights. Jewish leaders marched in Montgomery and Selma. Fifty percent of white civil rights workers were Jewish and fifty percent of civil rights attorneys in the south were Jewish. Jews helped to found the NAACP. Historically Black Colleges welcomed professors who were Holocaust survivors to teach on their campuses. Ms. McKinney wants us to throw away this glorious shared history and begin a new relationship of bitterness and misunderstanding.

We sincerely disagree with this approach and hope that the leaders of all multicultural groups at Binghamton University share our desire to work together to combat hate and intolerance by creating opportunities for real dialogue. We look forward to a day when we can truly partner with our fellow students and learn to understand and respect one another’s backgrounds.

Hillel E-Board

What’s sad is that Hillel seems surprised that this type of hate speech happened on their campus and that voices of opposition were systematically surpressed. 

But this is the standard MO of the left: spread lies and hate and silence opposition. The mainstream media does it, the Obama administration is doing it, and on left-wing-dominated college campus they are most certainly doing it.

Here’s another sad thing about coverage of this incident: Not once is McKinney’s Democrat party affiliation mentioned.

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Louis Farrakhan on the Ft. Hood Massacre

Jim at Gateway Pundit reports on an interview with “Nation of Islam” Leader Louis Farrakhan, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on November 6. In it, Farrakhan blames the Ft. Hood massacre on the foreign policy of George W. Bush and on the climate of anti-Muslim sentiment fostered by Jews and Christians alike during his administration. Take it away, Calypso Louie:

As you know, since 9/11, in America and in other parts of the world, those anti-Islamic forces have stepped up their efforts to make Muslims… to cause the Muslims to be looked at as uncivilized, savage, or wicked people. This is an attempt by anti-Islamic forces, and some members of the Jewish community, and some members of the Christian community, who have united to condemn Islam …

It is because, my dear brothers and sisters, Islam was making so much progress in the United States that those anti-Islamic forces are trying to stem the tide of the progress of Islam. …

When there are Muslims who love America, and who join the armed forces to protect America, and to serve the interests of America, and then America, unfortunately, under the falsehoods of the George. W. Bush administration, launches attacks against Iraq and against Afghanistan, and now, those soldiers are killing Muslims… So when they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the kind of hatred that is built up in the American forces, when they call the Muslims “ragheads” and “desert niggers,” and then, in the Abu Ghureib prison, Muslim women were raped, and Muslim men were sodomized …

All this affects Muslims serving in the army. So when you are being insulted by your superior officers or by your fellow soldiers, at some point, a person might break. Unfortunately, I believe this is what happened to Captain Nidhal Hassan.

Isn’t is amazing when it’s hard to tell when a hateful anti-American rant is being delivered by the leader of the Nation of Islam or by an MSNBC commentator?

Speaking of which, my initial reaction to these statements (other than disgust) was to ask: Hey, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNYTLATWaPo: Will any of you be reporting on this, actual, hate speech (as opposed from the fake hate speech by Rush Limbaugh et al., which is basically any speech that doesn’t echo the liberal template)? Or will you dutifully sweep it under the rug since the speaker is a close personal friend of President Hope&Change’s pastor of 20+ years?

And then I realized: This interview was from November 6. It’s now November 18, and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.

Should I be surprised?

Liberal Hypocrisy: Obama Tells ChiComs He Respects Political Dissent

Wha-wha-whaaaaat?

The man who just signed a First-Amendment-violating "hate crime" bill? 

A man who has sicced czars on media outlets who refuse to toe the hard left party line? 

A man who had his DHS director officially label Tea Partiers and government-run health (s)care opponents as terrorists?

A man who has appointed officials who openly worship free-speech-hating dictators Mao Ze Dong, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro?

A man who has allowed officials to go on some news stations and declare that other news stations are illegitimate?

A man who planned on capturing and permanently archiving any comments written on the White House's Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and You Tube pages? [h/t "jacknhoo" at FR]

What is this person smoking?

Michelle Malkin’s latest article on this issue is so brilliant, I couldn’t bare to truncate it. Enjoy:

Obama’s Doubletalk on Political Dissent

President Obama traveled all the way to China to praise the free flow of information. It’s the only safe place he could do so without getting heckled. With a straight face, Obama lauded political dissent and told Chinese students he welcomed unfettered criticism in America. Fierce opposition, he said, made him “a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.” How do you say “You lie!” in Mandarin? [Thanks to one of Michelle’s Facebook friends, the answer to that question is: 您說謊! Ní shuō huǎng!]

While the kowtower-in-chief’s press shop feeds paeans to free speech into Obama’s globetrotting teleprompter, the White House is still waging war on vocal foes at home. Obama has lectured his critics in Washington to stop talking and “get out of the way.” He has stacked his carefully staged town halls with partisan stooges and campaign plants throughout the year. The president recently derided limited-government activists in the Tea Party movement with a vulgar sexual term used by left-wing cable host Anderson Cooper on CNN and the MSNBC smear merchants (just Google “teabagging” and you’ll see what they mean).

There are now more muzzled watchdogs in the Obama administration than on the sidelines of the Westminster Kennel Club show. [Nice one, Michelle!]

Most recently, two EPA lawyers critical of the “fatally flawed” cap-and-trade system — peddled by their agency, the White House and the Democratic majority — were told by their superiors to yank a video they posted to YouTube explaining their views. Despite including a caveat that the opinions expressed were their own and not the agency’s, the couple faces possible disciplinary action by the feds. While demanding the video be yanked, the EPA disingenuously claims it tolerates all dissenting views of its employees.

The clampdown follows on the heels of the Obama EPA’s stifling of veteran researcher Alan Carlin’s dissent. He dared to challenge the agency’s reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas “public endangerment” finding. Carlin’s report was squelched; his office is now on the chopping block.

In China, O proclaimed himself “a big supporter of non-censorship.” But his FCC “diversity” czar, Mark Lloyd, is bent on re-engineering public airwaves by redistributing free speech rights from conservative haves who earned their success to minority have-nots who demand talk radio entitlements in the name of “media justice.”

And among Obama’s closest advisers is a husband-and-wife duo who specializes in marginalizing and stifling the Democratic Party’s most effective enemies. Just days after White House interim communications director Anita Dunn — the administration’s resident Mao cheerleader and Fox News-basher — stepped down to take a planned role as a “consultant” behind the scenes, her husband, Robert Bauer, stepped up and shoved aside White House counsel Greg Craig. 

Damn! Just think, last month the leftocracy went apesh*t about the alleged deposing of RINO Dede Scozzafava by hard-right “Stalinists” like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh (a charge that was considered common knowledge, yet has no iota of substantiation). Yet here’s a real instance of an Obama administration official being forced out by genuine hard-left Stalinists, but among the so-called liberal protectors of justice and decency you could hear a pin drop.

Now enter Robert Bauer, the “better” half of disgraced avoweed Mao-lover and Obama’s former communications director:

The problem? Former Clinton lawyer Craig wasn’t tough enough for Chicago-on-the-Potomac. Obama needed an intimate ally who will put hardball politics ahead of policy and the law. Bauer fits the bill.

A partner at the prestigious law firm Perkins & Coie, Bauer served as counsel to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Obama for America. He has served as Obama’s personal attorney, navigating the corrupted waters of former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pay-for-play scandals in Illinois. He also served as legal counsel to the George Soros-funded 527 organization America Coming Together during the 2004 campaign.

That get-out-the-vote outfit, helmed by Patrick Gaspard (the former Service Employees International Union heavy turned Obama domestic policy chief), employed convicted felons as canvassers and committed campaign finance violations that led to a $775,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission under Bauer’s watch.

During the 2008 campaign, Bauer pooh-poohed GOP complaints about voter fraud. While decrying the Republicans’ “fear message,” it was Bauer who was on a fear-inducing crusade — pulling out all legal stops to silence conservative critics of Obama’s ties to the radical left.

As I’ve noted previously, and in light of Obama’s self-serving praise for political dissent abroad, I note again: It was Bauer who lobbied the Justice Department unsuccessfully last fall to pursue a criminal probe of American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad spotlighting Obama’s ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

It was Bauer and his legal goon squad who attempted to sic the DOJ on GOP donor Harold Simmons and sought his prosecution for funding the ad. In a parallel effort launched the same week as Bauer’s legal efforts, a nonprofit called “Accountable America,” spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit, began trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with “warning letters” in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising.

It was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country into pulling the spot. Team Obama then summoned their troops to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

With Bob “The Silencer” Bauer now working from the inside and Anita “News Commissar” Dunn working from the outside, Obama has a state media police apparatus the Chinese regime itself could love.

This guy makes Stalin look like Ghandi. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bauer had something to do with this week’s “apparent suicide” of Chicago school board president Michael Scott. I’m just sayin’ …

That Obama could say this, to the communist Chinese or anyone, is worse than ludicrous. It’s delusional to the maximum power.

Quotes of Note: Two Gems from El Rushbo

Here are two quotes (well, more like monologues) from El Rusho. No wonder the left fears and loathes this guy!

On 9/11 terrorists being tried in civilian court:

The idea that these guys are going to be acquitted is very real even without a jury pool that includes Greenwich Village and the Upper East Side. We are bringing noncitizens to the United States for trial at a court after they are thus going to be conferred with what amounts to new US citizenship rights. … [I think he meant Upper West Side, who are significantly more left-wing. (I ought to know. Before 9/11, and before my political “awakening,” I used to live there). You’ll actually find some Republicans on the Upper East Side.]

Do you realize Barack Obama is tougher on insurance companies than he is on the 9/11 mastermind? I want to know—Eric Holder—I’m still struck by things he said in his press conference. “We gotta find a jury of their peers.” These guys are not citizens! Who the hell are we going to find that is a jury of their peers?

Do you realize we’re standing 200 years of America history on its head? A jury of their peers!? The only one I can think of is Chris Matthews, but we need 11 more. You know what I think we ought to do? I think Obama needs to appoint Cindy Sheehan to the federal bench and let her be the judge in the case. I mean if they’re going to make a mockery of this, let’s go to all the way. Who else besides Matthews would be on the jury of a bunch of peers? Olbermann? I can’t get off of it. Jeremiah Wright, oh, except he doesn’t live in New York. Ayers, yeah.

—El Rushbo, November 16, 2009

Yes, I unabashedly swiped this graphic from Rush’s website. It’s just so awesome!

On record unemployment despite the stimulus pork bill:

TARP was not about bailing out the financial sector! If it were, there wouldn’t be over half of it left. Over half of the TARP money is left. The original purpose was buying up toxic assets and getting credit flowing again. After they got it passed, guess what? It turned into a liquidity thing for the banks, saving the banks.

Stimulus was about what? Creating jobs. And we’re at 10.2% unemployment! … It’s a slush fund! 

Look where the money is going: It’s going to political cronies and allies. Next year, it’s going to go to Democrats for their reelection campaigns. Only 14% has been spent, ostensibly to create jobs. It was never for that.

Now, if you go to Congress as president, say, “I want a $750 billion slush fund. I want you to authorize for me $750 billion so that I can buy political favors with it,” he’d never get it done. But if you go there and say, “We gotta save jobs, we need a stimulus bill, infrastructure, shovel-ready jobs, put people back to work, we gotta rebuild this economy.” … Everybody signs on, because who’s against rebuilding the economy? Who’s against people working (other than Obama)? Who’s against any of it? 

So you sign it, and you pass it, and the same thing with TARP. What you end up with, in fact, is two slush funds. That’s what we’re dealing with here.

Climate change? Slush fund! Health care? Slush fund! With the added benefit that with all that money and newly acquired power, the world body, whoever it would be, and the Obama government get to regulate every aspect of human life under the auspices of “saving money” and “cutting costs in health care.” …

It's the thug Democrat way of doing things. You can't get what you want with the legitimacy of a democratic vote because nobody is in favor of this stuff, so you go buy it, and that's what they're doing.

—El Rushbo, November 16, 2009

El Rushbo and Fox News Must Be Reading My Blog

Over the weekend, when I posted on how AP sicced a team of “journalists” to fact-check Sarah Palin’s new autobiography—only to find six “lies” in 432 pages. I then noted that neither they nor the mainstream media bothered to fact-check Bill and Hillary Clinton’s memoirs, and certainly didn’t fact-check Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

Well, lo and behold - On Monday’s show, Rush says:

Hey, AP, I got an idea for you. Assign those same 11 reporters to Algore’s book and see how many facts you can find, not errors. What is his stupid book, Earth in the Balance? No, no, that was the preview. What’s the book or slide show out there? … Don’t look it up. I don’t care. But whatever the current book is on global warming, they made the slide show out of and so forth and that little movie that the kids in school were required to watch, assign the same 11 reporters to that book and find out how many facts you can find!

OK, OK, I’ll give Rush a pass for following me on this story. My post was from Saturday and his next show wasn’t until Monday.

In any case, it cracked me up that he couldn’t recall the title An Inconvenient Truth. But then I thought, Rush is a smart guy; he has to remember the name. He was just irking the Goracle and his worshippers, I think.

And then yesterday, Fox News.com had this:

November 17, 2009
AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book ‘Fact Check’
by Robert Shaffer, FOXNews.com

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service …

When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin's motives for writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," stating as fact that the book "has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto."

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled "Really? Still Making Things Up?"

“Imagine that,” the post read. “11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing.”

The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn't comment on their own reporting for this story.

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the treatment Palin's book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

Hey, that’s what I wrote! Yeah, I know. It’s a big responsibility being the trend setter. Thanks for reading my blog though, guys. I’ll keep workin’ hard! :)

Terrorist-Lover Lynne Stewart Ordered to Jail

She'd probably consider her new orange jumpsuit a badge of honor, but whatever. She can do a whole lot less harm to our country behind bars.

Michelle Malkin has the story.

Listen & Learn: Steve Malzberg on Terrorists Being Tried in Civilian Court (11/13/09)

As I was catching up with my favorite podcasts from the past several days, my attention was caught by Steve Malzberg’s Friday show. Steve, fiery as ever, spends all three hours discussing the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to try five G’tmo terrorists connected to 9/11 in U.S. civilian court, particularly mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Somehow I’ve managed to condense this blood-boiling show down to approximately 40 minutes of highlights.

In the first part Steve sets up the situation and plays clips from AG Eric Holder talking to the press about the decision.

The second segment Steve plays an infuriating clip from the Rachel Maddow show in which Maddow defends the Obama administration’s decision. She then insists that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is’t even a terrorist and accuses the right of playing the “Democrats are soft on terrorism” card with no substantiation!

In the third segment Steve discusses reactions by public officials across the political spectrum, and has on Congressman Peter King (R-NY) to share his thoughts on this shande.

[Edited for commercial breaks, long silences, and extraneous talking]

Download Malzberg2009-11-13-Pt1_80kbps

Download Malzberg2009-11-13-Pt2_80kbps

Download Malzberg2009-11-13-Pt3_80kbps

20th Anniversary of the Czechoslovak "Velvet Revolution"

Those of you who still believe that freedom is an American (and human) value will appreciate the significance of this day. Twenty years ago today communism fell in Czechoslovakia with considerably little blood spilt. 

 

Here's a summary of the Velvet Revolution From Radio Prague:

The six-week period between November 17 and December 29, 1989, also known as the “Velvet Revolution” brought about the bloodless overthrow of the Czechoslovak communist regime. Almost immediately, rumors (which have never been proved) began to circulate that the impetus for the Velvet Revolution had come from a KGB provocateur sent by Gorbačev, who wanted reform rather than hardline communists in power. The theory goes that the popular demonstrations went farther than Gorbačev and the KGB had intended. In part because of this, the Czechs do not like the term “Velvet Revolution,” preferring to call what happened “the November Events” (Listopadové událostí) or—sometimes - just “November” (Listopad). But we digress.

It all started on November 17, 1989—fifty years to the day that Czech students had held a demonstration to protest the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. On this anniversary, students in the capital city of Prague were again protesting an oppressive regime.

The protest began as a legal rally to commemorate the death of Jan Opletal, but turned instead into a demonstration demanding democratic reforms. Riot police stopped the students (who were making their way from the Czech National Cemetery at Vyšehrad to Wenceslas Square) halfway in their march, in Národní třída. After a stand-off in which the students offered flowers to the riot police and showed no resistance, the police bagan beating the young demonstrators with night sticks. In all, at least 167 people were injured. One student was reportedly beaten to death, and—although this was later proved false—this rumor served to crystallize support for the students and their demands among the general public. In a severe blow to the communists’ morale, a number of workers’ unions immediately joined the students’ cause.

From Saturday, November 18, until the general strike of November 27, mass demonstrations took place in Prague, Bratislava, and elsewhere - and public discussions instead of performances were held in Czechoslovakia’ theaters. During one of these discussions, at the Cinoherní Klub theater on Sunday, November 19, the Civic Forum (OF) was established as the official “spokesgroup” for “the segment of the Czechoslovak public which is ever more critical of the policy of the present Czechoslovak leadership.”

The Civic Forum, led by the then-dissident Václav Havel, demanded the resignation of the Communist government, the release of prisoners of conscience, and investigations into the November 17 police action. A similar initiative—the Public Against Violence (VPN)—was born in Slovakia on November 20, 1989. Both of them were joined en masse by Czechoslovak citizens - from university students and staff to workers in factories and employees of other institutions. It took about 2 weeks for the nation’s media to begin broadcasting reports of what was really going on in Prague, and in the interim students travelled to cities and villages in the countryside to rally support outside the capital.

The leaders of the Communist regime were totally unprepared to deal with the popular unrest, even though communist regimes throughout the region had been wobbling and toppling around them for some time.

As the mass demonstrations continued—and more and more Czechoslovaks supported the general strikes that were called—an extraordinary session of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee was called. The Presidium of the Communist Party resigned, and a relatively unknown Party member, Karel Urbanek, was elected as the new Communist Party leader. The public rejected these cosmetic changes, which were intended to give the impression that the Communist Party was being reformed from within as it had been in 1968. The people’s dissatisfaction increased.

Massive demonstrations of almost 750,000 people at Letna Park in Prague on November 25 and 26, and the general strike on the 27th were devastating for the communist regime. Prime Minister Ladislav Adamec was forced to hold talks with the Civic Forum, which was led by still-dissident (soon to be President) Václav Havel. The Civic Forum presented a list of political demands at their second meeting with Adamec, who agreed to form a new coalition government, and to delete three articles - guaranteeing a leading role in political life for the Czechoslovak Communist Party and for the National Front, and mandating Marxist-Leninist education—from the Constitution. These amendments were unanimously approved by the communist parliament the next day, on November 29, 1989.

Well, the old saying that ‘if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile’ held true, and the communist capitulation led to increased demands on the part of the demonstrators. A new government was formed by Marian Calfa; it included just nine members of the Czechoslovak Communist Party (several of whom actively cooperated with the Civic Forum); two members of the Czechoslovak Socialist Party; two members of the Czechoslovak People’s Party; and seven ministers with no party affiliation - all of latter were Civic Forum or Public Against Violence activists.

This new government was named by Czechoslovak President Gustav Husák on December 10. The same evening, he went on television to announce his resignation, and the Civic Forum cancelled a general strike which had been scheduled for the next day.

At the 19th joint session of the two houses of the Federal Assembly, Alexandr Dubček—who had led the ill-fated Prague Spring movement in the 1960’s—was elected Speaker of the Federal Assembly. One day later, the parliament elected the Civic Forum’s leader, Václav Havel, President of Czechoslovakia.

Despite their many shortcomings—not the least of which were political inexperience and serious time pressures—the new government and parliament were able to fill in many of the most gaping gaps in the Czechoslovak legal framework—concentrating in particular on the areas of human rights and freedoms, private ownership, and business law. They were also able to lay the framework for the first free elections to be held in Czechoslovakia in more than 40 years.

The results of the 1990 local and parliamentary elections in Czechoslovakia, which were likened at the time to a referendum which posed the question “Communism, yes or no?” showed a sweeping victory for the soon to be extinct Civic Forum (OF) in the Czech Republic, and for the Public Against Violence (VPN) in Slovakia. In other words, “Communism, no thanks.”

The turnout for the local elections was more than 73 percent, and for Parliamentary elections more than 96 percent of the population went to the polls!

Czech Petr Pithart of the Civic Forum was elected as Czech Premier, Slovaks Vladimir Meciar and Marian Calfa, both of the Public Against Violence (VPN), were elected Slovak and Federal Premier, respectively. Václav Havel was re-elected as the Czechoslovak President on July 5, 1990.

I realize our esteemed president is in Asia apologizing for all the bad things we've done, but surely he'll find time to apologize for this too.

 

I found this heartwrenching post from a Czech blogger named Adriana Lukas:

Looking back in anger

It’s been twenty years since my firm belief in a better way of life was vindicated. 17th November was the beginning of the end of an era shaped by collectivism, brutality and industrialised inhumanity. I have written about my experiences of communism on Samizdata before. Today I’ll use someone else’s words to describe the wasteland communism leaves behind.

In 1992, Peter Saint-Andre has written a disturbing, brilliant and accurate description of what communism does to the soul:

...the hunger that I found most disturbing was not of the body but of the soul. [...] The socialist state cared nothing for the life of the individual, and this was driven home in innumerable ways.

Yet the overall effect was not merely physical—it was a deeply spiritual degradation. It is difficult to put that degradation into words. To me, the most striking sign of it was what I called "Eastern eyes". I could see and feel the resignation, the defeat, the despair, in the eyes of people I knew. It was an all-too-rare occurrence to come upon a person with some spark of life in his or her eyes (the only exceptions were the children, who had yet to have the life beaten out of them). If it is true that the eyes are windows onto the soul, then the Czech soul under socialism went through life all but dead.

It is tough for me to come up with something to say 20 years on that is not tinged with bitterness and disappointment and if not for the significant anniversary, I would have left this memory unturned. Despite the amazing change 1989 and its aftermath brought to my life I feel no closure over the past and a sense of proportion in the way the fall of communism has been ‘handled’. Today we should be looking back at the last 20 years counting the many communists who died in prison or are still rotting there... I can only hope that future generations will revisit the past and will have far lower tolerance of collectivism and totalitarianism. It may be a futile hope as today’s teenagers have little knowledge of the world my generation and that of my parents grew up. And so I am bitter and disappointed that people can say the word "communism" without spitting.

I am also bitter and disappointed because those who opposed communism have not won. It is still with us, in the idiotic juxtapositions of Nazism and communism, or socialism and free-market, used by those who aspire to communism and justify it by positing Nazism as the greater evil. It still raises its ugly head in those who despise free-markets and attempt to put a human mask on socialism by pointing out ‘failures’ of capitalism. Rather hard as socialism, like all totalitarianisms, has no face. It is the ultimate denigration of humanity, destruction of individuality, and subjugation of human beings to the vast merciless machine of control and power.

Communism is still with us in China and North Korea. One befriended by the West, the other frowned upon... but neither is ever challenged because of the oppression of its people, and only when it manages to ‘inconvenience’ the rest of the world. Once it falls, it will be horrifying and beyond belief to examine the monstrosities committed by the communists in the light of day. Again, I can only hope that the world will be shamed and aghast at letting this happen for so long. Until then, we only have testimonials such as this: Undercover in the Secret State

I am grateful to those who remember, struggle to understand and explain communism, and especially to those who have managed to capture something of the nature of the beast. …

Very inspiring words. Such a shame that those who currently run our highest offices of government are enthusiastic fans of this destructive and immoral system.

Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc., are you listening?

Additional info about the Velvet Revolution here.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Gives Dems an Economics Lesson (11/12/09)

An Obama-worshiping liberal/Democrat friend recently told me about another friend of his who served on the economic advisory team to several U.S. presidents. This advisor resigned in frustration while working for George W. Bush. He allegedly could no longer stand Bush’s economic illiteracy; Bush, I was told, just didn’t seem to comprehend what his economic advisors were trying to explain to him.

Among the biggest frustrations, according to this story, was Bush’s lack of desire to fix Social Security. According to his friend the economic advisor, when it came to Social Security reform, Bush was all talk and no action.

Now, I don’t want to call my lib-Dem friend a liar, but there is something really wrong with this picture. First of all, say anything you want about some of Bush’s economic decisions (can you say TARP!?), the man was the first U.S. president to hold an MBA. Second, how could my friend with a straight face accuse Bush of not wanting to reform Social Security! There was nothing Bush could have done without the cooperation of Democrats in Congress!

Ironically, this conversation with my lib-Dem friend took place not long after the Joe Wilson “You lie!” outrage. My friend, naturally, was as offended as any other Obamaniac by Rep. Wilson’s remark on the House floor. But he apparently did not know that Congressional Democrats pulled a “Joe Wilson” a hundred-fold when in both 2005 and 2006 they heckled Bush on the same House floor when he mentioned the need to fix Social Security.

But why would anyone look to George W. Bush in search of economic illiteracy when it is currently running rampant throughout Democrat-controlled Washington like never before in American history? In the White House we have a Marxist ideologue who has surrounded himself with other Marxist ideologues making economic policy decisions that have never worked in the history of humankind. In Congress we have opportunistic demagogues who are good at waxing eloquent about “helping middle class families” but enacting no legislation that actually … um … helps middle class families.

Let's look at the Recovery Act, a.k.a. the stimulus pork bill. Here are some statements from our delusional president [h/t Randall Hoven at American Thinker and The Hill]:

If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment. —January 2009.

... A full accounting of jobs created or saved thus far... yields estimates ranging from around 600,000 to 1.5 million... we are solidly on track to meet our goal of 3.5 million jobs saved or created by the end of next year. — October 2009.

Increasing job growth is the “overriding focus” of [Obama’s] administration. … “Having brought the economy back from the brink, the question is, how are we going to make sure that people are getting back to work and able to support their families? … It's not going to happen overnight, but we will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs.” — November 2, 2009

That’s the flowery rhetoric. Here’s the grim reality:

Obama’s Failed Stimulus in Pictures: 10.2% Unemployment

 

If job growth is the overriding focus of Obama’s administration, than Barack Hussein Obama is a failure of the highest order. Every month since passing of the $787 billion stimulus pork bill, the unemployment rate has in actuality been higher with the bill than what “experts” predicted in theory without the bill. The stimulus bill didn’t “bring the economy back from the brink,” as Obama says at least once a week. The economy is worse despite the stimulus bill than it was predicted to be without it.

Translation: The Recovery Act is a big fat failed waste of taxpayer dollars. And forgive me for thinking this wasn’t just an honest mistake. It was a deliberate economy-destroying scam. Possibly the biggest scam in American history other than the looming cap-and-tax bill and government-run health (s)care. (And whodathunk that the three biggest prosperity-depleting scams in American history all would have happened within one year under the same administration and under the same Congress?)

It’s like New Deal all over again. Most economists and historians agree that the U.S. economy would have bounced back faster had FDR and the federal government not imposed itself upon the free market. Either Obama and the Democrats are too ignorant to learn from history, or they are plowing full speed ahead with their economy-destroying legislation knowing the lessons of the New Deal all too well (i.e., it made millions of Americans dependent on the Democrat Party, buying their votes and therefore maintaining control of the federal government for decades.)

But President Hope&Change should take comfort in knowing he isn’t the only one whose economic illiteracy has contributed to these disastrous unemployment numbers. He had help from the biggest economic ignoramus in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Since the Democrats took over both houses of Congress in January, 2007, there have been three federally-enforced minimum wage increases.

Nancy Pelosi, naturally, was the loudest crusader for minimum wage increases, making it one of her Congress’s first priorities. In 2008, pandering to the supposedly disenfranchised 99% of the American population, Madame Speaker said [h/t Randall Hoven at American Thinker]:

Last year, the New Direction Congress enacted the first minimum wage increase in a decade—which is being implemented in three steps … The previous Republican-controlled Congresses blocked minimum wage proposals from being considered. In 2006 alone, Republicans blocked minimum wage legislation from coming to a vote 11 times. The minimum wage increase passed by the Democratic-led Congress is the first pay raise for working Americans in almost 10 years. This raise is part of our New Direction towards shared prosperity, and is a down payment on a broader American agenda for working families.

Critics like Thomas Sowell, author of Basic Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies, knew the dire consequences: Employers were either going to have to (1) fire workers they will no longer be able to afford to pay, (2) cut back on products/services or the quality thereof, (3) pass the extra cost onto us, the consumers, or (4) all of the above.

But when you’re a liberal-Democrat, ideologically-driven “compassion” trumps cold hard economic facts.

So no surprise when in October we find out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [h/t Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog] that:

Seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment hit 25.9%, the highest rate in the nearly 62 years BLS has been reporting this number. The previous record was last month’s 25.5%.

Unemployment among black teens not enrolled in school is over 50%.

The rate among 20-24 year-olds is also alarmingly high at 15.1%.

Blumer makes this depressing, yet unsurprising, observation. Yet another chief figure of economic illiteracy, the mainstream media, who tossed rose petals at Congress with every minimum wage increase, could now not understand the unprecedented levels of teen unemployment.

With the exception of a single Wall Street Journal piece (an editorial no less; not even a news story), not a single mainstream media outlet reported the plain-as-day fact that their precious minimum wage increases was the primary factor. 

In case you’re still not convinced, consider this graph:

 

With that, I give you the following 20 minutes from the first hour of Thursday’s Mark Levin show. In it, The Great One gives President Hope&Change and the Democrats a much-needed lesson on economics.

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

Download Levin2009-11-12-Pt1_80kbps

Download Levin2009-11-12-Pt2_80kbps

Liberal Lie #7: Muslims Are at Risk Because of American Intolerance, Cont'd

[Part 1here]

First, a related strip hot off the presses at Diversity Lane:

 

Clay Waters at NewsBusters weighed in yesterday on the media bias on the Ft. Hood shooting vs. "right-wing" terrorism:

NYT Columnists Who Blamed Conservatives for ‘Right-Wing’ Killings Ignoring Fort Hood Massacre

Back in June, liberal columnists at the New York Times lined up to link conservative talkers Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh to James von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, and the murder by Scott Roeder of abortionist George Tiller.

Columnists Paul Krugman and Judith Warner both weighed in on June 12.

Krugman’s “The Big Hate” blamed Fox host Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric (“Tiller the baby killer”) for the Tiller murder, as well as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, for contributing to the dangerously toxic atmosphere.

Warner’s online entry, “The Wages of Hate,” read: “You can't accuse Beck or Limbaugh of inciting violence. But they almost certainly do stoke the flames.”

Frank Rich also blamed O’Reilly for the Tiller murder in his Sunday column, "The Obama Hater's Silent Enablers," two days later.

Bob Herbert came in late, on June 20, referring to the killings as “right-wing, hate-driven attacks” and also blaming “over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association.”

So how did these professional hand-wringers treat another incident of violence, this one even more tragic: A mass killing of 13 people, many of them soldiers, at Fort Hood in Texas by a Muslim Army major shouting “God is great” in Arabic?

They’ve ignored it.

As of November 13, eight days after the Fort Hood murders, neither Rich, Krugman, or Warner have mentioned the massacre, much less Hasan’s radical Islamic beliefs. Only Bob Herbert devoted two sentences to Hasan on Saturday, using the killings as a leaping-off point to talk about post-traumatic stress suffered by veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan (even though Hasan hasn’t even seen combat).

Yeah. Just … yeah.