Then:
The average American is not looking at the newspaper and saying: Gee, the economy is great. They are sitting down at the dinner table Friday night and tearing out their hair about how they are going to pay their bills.
-- Senator Chucky "Schmucky" Schumer (D-NY), May 5, 2004
For the Administration to be out there saying things are great shows just how out of touch they are with the average American.
-- Senator Chucky "Schmucky" Schumer (D-NY), January 23, 2006
No one needs to remind the Senator that at those times, the economy was excellent. In 2004 the unemployment rate was a respectable 5.5%. In January, 2006, unemployment rate was 4.9%, 400,000 new jobs created in the two months prior, the GDP increased 4% in 3Q 2005 (during which, for whatever it's worth, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita occurred), and there had been a 3.5% annual productivity growth since George W. Bush took office. In other words, the economy was by all standards fantastic.
Now:
After three years of Obama's America, the unemployment rate has been higher than 8% for over two years. The GDP increased 3% over all of 2010 and only 1.7% in 2011. But what does Schmucky say:
The Republican speaker last night, Mitch Daniels, talked about Americans must talk about the state of the union as grave. So, we think we are in great shape. We are in good shape.
Gee, what a difference a president makes.
I'm certainly not the only one to notice the ludicrousness of Schumer's statement. An editorial at the Arkansas Republican Assembly website sums up the response to Schumer pretty well:
Currently, over 13 million Americans are unemployed. There are fewer jobs in America than when President Obama took office in 2009, and the unemployment rate is still more than 8%. And Sen. Schumer thinks “we are in great shape”?
Yesterday, the AP reported, “Fewer people bought new homes in December. The decline made 2011 the worst year for new -homes sales on records dating back nearly half a century. The Commerce Department said Thursday new-home sales fell 2.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 307,000. The pace is less than half the 700,000 that economists say must be sold in a healthy economy. About 302,000 new homes were sold last year. That's less than the 323,000 sold in 2010, making last year's sales the worst on records dating back to 1963. And it coincides with a report last week that said 2011 was the weakest year for single-family home construction on record.” In December, Standard & Poor’s announced, “The Fourth Quarter Starts with Broad-based Declines in Home Prices”. And there have been 7.7 million foreclosure filings since President Obama took office. But Sen. Schumer thinks “we are in great shape”?
Today, National Journal writes, “Real Gross Domestic Product rose by just 1.7 percent in 2011, the Commerce Department reported on Friday. That's not great news for President Obama, who oversaw 3 percent GDP growth in 2010 and cannot use the latest GDP data to support a narrative of economic turnaround.” The AP notes, “The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy grew just 1.7 percent last year, roughly half of the growth in 2010 and the worst since the recession.” And University of Pennsylvania economist Justin Wolfers tells The New York Times, “At this rate, we’ll never reduce unemployment. . . . The recovery has been postponed, again.” But Sen. Schumer says “we are in great shape”?
But we know Schmucky really doesn't believe his own lie. But why does he lie to begin with? And why, when the Bush economy was excellent, did he lie then? Easy: Because Schumer is a bitter partisan hack, that's why.
Not too long ago President Hope&Change waxed eloquent for the umpteenth time about howRepublicans need to stop putting party and ideology over the welfare of the country. He ought to look in the mirror. And when he's done, he should give his own warning to Schumer.
"This was a mass of confusion, hypocrisies, lies, and distortions, and a failed attempt by a failed president to attach himself to America's greatness when he wouldn't recognize it if it slapped him upside the head!"
That pretty much sums up Rush's analysis of President Hope&Change's SOTU STFU speech on Tuesday:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
It's the most ridiculous and uncontroversial issue in the world, but leave it to a liberal/Democrat to make it serious and controversial. According to them, demanding an official picture I.D. to vote "disenfranchises" poor people, particularly poor minorities.
How? No freaking idea.
But this, apparently, is why most Republicans -- nay, most Americans -- believe that voter I.D. is just plain common sense.
Because it is.
Think of all the things you have to do in your lives that require an official photo I.D.: from driving a car to boarding an airplane to renting a video to borrowing a library book to buying a bottle of liquor or pack of cigarettes. I've never heard of a single example of a minority, poor or otherwise, complaining about being barred from any of these activities because access to such I.D.'s were financially or otherwise prohibitive.
Yet for some reason, the notion that engaging in the very important civic activity of voting should require a proper state issued and most likely free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) voter I.D., is raaaacist. Right?
Wrong, according to liberal/Democrats who never waste a moment poisoning an important issue with wholly unsubstantiated claims of discrimination against minorities and other poor people.
As the 2012 presidential election approaches, Eric Holder, arguably the most despicable and politically abusive Attorney General in U.S. history, is playing the worn out race card to prevent states from implementing voter I.D. An editorial in last Friday's WSJ reads in part:
The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.
If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities. ...
Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.
The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.
That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.
Of course it's not good enough for Holder, or any liberal/Democrat because the whole issue is based on a lie. In other words, they're all F.O.C.
Directly related to this lie about "minority voter suppression" is another thing Democrats are F.O.C. about: Voter fraud. This crime, libs/Dems will tell you, is a Republican tactic. You all remember the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000, right? How did Bush ultimately win? Republican voter fraud. But that wasn't enough. When Bush won decisively in 2004 against John Kerry, how did the Dems explain that? Republican vote fraud.
Yet, the vast majority of election fraud convictions of recent years has been committed byDemocrats. Just last week four Democrats in New York state pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 primary. And the week before that, the chairman of Indiana's Democrat Party resigned as investigations into voter fraud in the 2008 presidential primary got underway.
And in 2010, Obama's tight buds at ACORN -- i.e., Democrats -- have been convicted in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Washington state, and elsewhere.
And need we rehash the way the bitter partisan Democrat Al Franken squeezed his way into the Senate for Minnesota in 2008?
Make no mistake: Democrat opposition to voter I.D. is all because it makes voter fraud significantly more difficult to get away with. And Democrats need fraudulent votes to win elections. They need felons to vote. They need illegal immigrants to vote. They need dead people to vote. And they apparently need Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler to vote as well. All the while accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud!
So pardon me for saying so, Eric Holder, but you and your race-baiting minions of liberals/Democrats are F.O.C.
*F.O.C. = Full of cr@p (But you probably figured that out by now)
My apologies for being so late on this one. A week ago I posted a 20+ minute sound clip of El Rushbo's take on Obama doubling down on Marxist class warfare at a Kansas high school on the 6th.
But I couldn't with good conscience delete my podcast of Mark Levin cutting through the crap without first providing a portion of it here. So here's the Great One doing what he does best:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
Victor Davis Hanson's latest article is so good, I've reposted it here in its entirety. This one deserves to go viral. It sums up the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama perfectly: Everything Obama believes is 180 out of phase with reality. And everything Obama does is 180 degrees out of phase with would he should do to fix problems he purports to want to fix.
The presidency of Barack Obama is full of funny things that need not follow any sort of logic. Images and ideas just pop in and out, without worry of inconsistency, contradiction, or hypocrisy. It’s a fascinating mish-mash of strange heroes and bogeymen, this imaginarium of our president.
In the imaginarium there are no revolving doors, earmarks, or lobbyists. So Peter Orszag did not go from being OMB director to a Citigroup fat-cat. Once chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel did not make $16 million for his well-known banking expertise.The more you damn the pernicious role of lobbyists and the polluting role of big money, the more you must hire and seek out both. Public financing of campaigns is wonderful for everyone else who lacks the integrity of Barack Obama who understandably must renounce such unfair impositions.
Those who now vote against raising the large Obama debt ceiling are political hucksters and opportunists; those who not long ago voted against raising the smaller Bush debt ceiling were principled statesmen. “Unpatriotic” presidents borrow $4 trillion in eight years; patriotic ones we’ve been waiting for can trump that in three.
Catching known terrorists and putting them in Guantanamo is very bad; killing suspected ones by drone assassinations — and anyone unlucky enough to be in their general vicinity — is exceptionally good. Tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, and all that were bad ideas under Bush-Cheney, but could become good ideas under Barack Obama, the law professor who often sees no need to follow the law when an immigration or marriage statute is deemed regressive.
A million Iranians protesting a soon-to-be-nuclear theocracy is false revolutionary consciousness and to be left alone; a few thousand Israelis wanting to buy apartments in the Jerusalem suburbs is subversive and worthy of presidential condemnation. And when atoning for supposed American lapses, what better place to begin apologizing than in Turkey, the incubator of the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish mass killings? We need to deny history to make the case that America is not exceptional, and to invent it to persuade us that the Muslim world is extraordinary.
Twenty-four months of a Democratic Congress, and over $4 trillion in spending, resulted in 9.1% unemployment and near nonexistent growth. Yet the culprit for the current situation is ten months of a Republican-controlled House that has yet to approve another $500 million of borrowing. In the imaginarium, just a little more of the massive amount that has failed will not fail. But if the Republicans are to be blamed for not wanting to waste the last half-trillion, are the Democrats to be praised for borrowing the first wasted $4 trillion?
In the imaginarium, all sorts of demons and devils can unite to derail the brilliance of Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. ATMs have for the first time after 2009 begun to eliminate jobs. But then so did the Japanese tsunami and the EU meltdown. The DC earthquake did its part, but then so did climbing oil prices and the Arab Spring. Of course, the ghost of George Bush floats over all the present mess. Economic gurus like Austan Goolsbee, Peter Orszag, Christina Romer, and Larry Summers used to write brilliant essays of what would work if they were to be in charge, and now write brilliant essays about why it did not work when they were in charge.
There are lots of ways to bring Americans together across class and racial lines. One in the imaginarium is to focus on the “teabag, anti-government people.” Another is to encourage Hispanics to “punish our enemies” — or have the attorney general lambaste Americans as racial “cowards” and to defend “my people.” Joining foreign governments to sue a fellow American state is no more red/no more blue state unity. Still another is to divide up the people between the suspect who make over $200,000 and the noble who make less, or yet again target the dubious “1%” at “the very top” who do not pay “their fair share,” a mere 40% of the aggregate income tax.
Inside the imaginarium, the way to demonize the “1%” is to vacation among them — whether at Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol. Buying a corporate jet is a waste of the people’s money — unlike daily flying on a much bigger private jet paid by the people.
To encourage energy self-sufficiency, the administration lent a half-billion dollars to campaign donor insiders and got unsellable solar panels in return — as it prevents a huge pipeline from Canada that will bring “shovel-ready” jobs and fuel to the United States far more cheaply than from the volatile Middle East. We have a brilliantly obtuse energy secretary who is a Nobel laureate but who thinks California farms — a record $15 billion in exports this year — will soon blow away and that gas should climb to European levels of about $9 a gallon. In the imaginarium, the purpose of Dr. Chu’s Department of Energy is not to encourage energy production and lower prices, but to find ways to prevent its development in search of raising its cost. The attorney general must be entirely conversant in small matters like a Black Panther voting intimidation case, but was completely ignorant of large ones like Fast and Furious that saw his subordinates sell automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
The president regrets that we are not innovative any more, and have gone “soft” and “lazy.” You see, his efforts at ensuring cradle-to-grave health care entitlements, of granting 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, and of extending food stamps to nearly 50 million are apparently incentives that should have led to a “hard” and “industrious” populace that was more self-reliant and willing to take risks on their own. “Spread the wealth” is a time-honored way of galvanizing people to become more self-disciplined and sufficient.
Business has failed us as well. And the way to get Las Vegas and Super Bowl junketeering CEOs profitable enough again to fund the growing redistributive state, is for them to take risks that result in the sort of massive projects that used to be an American trademark — things like the Hoover Dam, which changed the environmental landscape far more than would the apparently cancelled gargantuan pipeline from Canada to Texas. Business can be encouraged not to be lazy by a prod now and then — either by trying to shut down a big aircraft plant or a small guitar factory. And in the imaginarium, the way to gently chide the private sector is with words of encouragement like “millionaires and billionaires,” and “corporate jet owners,” along with grandfatherly advice to clueless capitalists about realizing the point at which they should cease making money.
In the imaginarium of Barack Obama there is no contradiction between smearing and shaking down Wall Street, a bunch that needs both to be told when and when not to profit, and to whom and to whom not to give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Barney Frank, who helped pressure Wall Street and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue billions in unsound loans, and Chris Dodd, who shook down fat cats for below-market interest rates for his vacation home, logically are the eponymous heroes of the Dodd-Frank fiscal reform act to ensure others do not do as did they. Former liberal governor, senator, and Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, who both wrecked MF Global and can’t account for $600 million in lost investments, is, in George Soros-like fashion, the best emblem of the contradictory desire to be the worst pirate on Wall Street in order to make the most money in order to be its most liberal critic. In the imaginarium we receive advice about the need for higher income taxes from multibillionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who have always sought to avoid them. Big government and big inheritance taxes, both magnates swear are good, and therefore the administration of their own postmortem fortunes will forever avoid both.
In the imaginarium, community organizer Barack Obama never lived in a small mansion. John “two Americas” Edwards never lived in a big one. “Earth in the balance” Al Gore never lived in a few of them, and yacht owning John Kerry never lived in lots of them. You see in the imaginarium of Barack Obama you can be whatever you wish to be. Just wishing and saying something can wonderfully make it so.
This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.
Well, the issue went to federal court and the judge ruled on the side of ... the assistant principal.
Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
Projection: One of the two official Defense Mechanisms of the Democrat Party (the other is Denial).
H/T Rick Moran at the American Thinker blog, via Weekly Standard: The Tea Party likes Herman Cain because he's a black man who knows his place? These are the words of a liberal racist named Karen Finney. She said it on MSWTF to a nodding, approving Martin Bashir.
To the racist Democrat left, the black man's place is stuck in crime-infested ghettos of the city, where poverty and unemployment is rampant and black-on-black crime is abysmally high.
To the racist Democrats, the black man's place is on multigenerational welfare and food stamps.
To the racist Democrats, the black man's place is on line by the thousands just to get an application -- not actual money but just an application for money! -- for housing money from the gubmint.
... as well as waiting on line by the thousands to apply for jobs.
To the the racist Democrats, the black man's place is in failed public schools rather than being given Republican-supported vouchers to go to schools of their choice. The current black illiteracy rates are totally fine to the Democrats. Keep 'em stupid, keep 'em controlled, right, you folks at MSWTF?
To the the racist Democrats, the black man's place is in gangs and racist violent organizations like the New Black Panthers, whose president was caught on video engaging in voter intimidation wielding a club at a Philadelphia voting site in 2008 and on another video shouting that "white cracker" babies should be killed.
So as long as black Americans stay on welfare and food stamps, in urban hell-holes where crime is high and blacks are killed by other blacks, where they "graduate" dilapidated public high schools virtually illiterate, where their only hope for relief is standing on line with thousands of other blacks signing up to get money that the government stole from other Americans, to fall in with gangs and violent racist groups.
And vote Democrat. Ninety-freaking-percent of them.
Actually in a way they're right. I like Herman Cain because he does know his place: His place to me is as an upstanding, educated, successful, and patriotic man of good character who has lifted himself up from his bootstraps and went from being dirt poor in the segregated South to being a millionaire.
Herman Cain is has two college degrees. He's held executive corporate positions for three decades. He's been a successful talk show host. And now he's on top of several polls for the GOP presidential nomination. That's a place I like to see any decent American regardless of his color.
Herman Cain was smart enough to escape the Democrat plantation. Racist Democrats like Karen Finney and Martin Bashir will be damned if he gets away with it. So they project their own racism onto the Right by claiming their support for Cain is because he knows his place.
UPDATE 10/31. Columnists and bloggers continue to weigh in:
Bob Beauprez at TownHall informs us that:
Karen Finney is not just any Democrat; she was the spokeswoman for the Democrat National Committee, served in the Clinton White House, was the press secretary for Hillary Clinton's New York Senate race, and is a veteran of four Presidential Campaigns. ...
In her attempt to disparage both Herman Cain and the Republican Party, Finney actually told us volumes about herself and the Democrat Party for which she was the designated singular voice.
James Taranto at WSJ's Best of the Web:
Like some others on the left, [Finney] accuses Cain's supporters of backing him because they are racist. That the targets of such a charge would find it offensive is understandable though not interesting. What is interesting is that she made a mind-bogglingly illogical statement on national television, and the host meekly accepted it.
Think about what she said: "I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place." In reality, he is a black man who thinks his place is in the White House. If Herman Cain is "a black man who knows his place," then so is Barack Obama.
From Weasel Zippers and elsewhere:
Via Heritage Action:
Despite their support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, (who, unlike the Tea Party, believe government is the answer to our economic problems), Democrats have enjoyed large paychecks from the industry.
President Obama, former-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Congresswoman and chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) have all raised significant funds from Wall Street – and these numbers are just since 2008!
This information was pulled from OpenSecrets.org. They don’t quite tell the whole story, since Presidential donations are listed differently than other politicians. So the President’s funds are much higher. He’s actually raised $3.9 million just this year so far. But, he has raised nearly $12 million in Wall Street donations for the DNC. In total, that’s more than all the Republican Presidential candidates combined have received from Wall Street.
Yet President Obama supports the Occupy Wall Street Movement. He said that their protests were a reflection of a “broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” He has also adopted the term “99%” when talking about raising taxes.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also spoken favorably for the protesters, saying “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen.” Where was this support when the Tea Party was taking on the political establishment, hmm?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) parroted Pelosi by saying that these protests are ““symbolic of the frustration that middle class folks and working people feel that the wealthy always seem to have the wind at their backs.” She went on to say that, “[w]e understand their frustration, we applaud their activism and hopefully they’re going to help get the Republicans in Washington’s attention so we shift the Republican’s focus from just Barack Obama’s job, to everyone’s job,”
Not surprisingly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz also denounced the Tea Party.
And finally, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), who has raked in more from Wall Street than Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz combined. Just after announcing his support for Occupy Wall Street, Congressman Frank headed to a fundraiser – with Wall Street bankers. How’s that for hypocrisy? Of course, he had an answer for that, saying:
“If you take money from them, but you don’t vote [for] the things they want, how does that put you in conflict?”
I can think of a few ways.
HT: Doug Ross
I hear people keep asking if liberals/Democrats really believe the crap they spew daily. For instance, are the Democrat-media complex aware of their hypocrisy as they credit President Hope&Change for the killing of Muammar Qaddafi when several months ago — and remember : this operation was only to take “days, not weeks” — they were dutifully parroting the president’s promise that U.S. troops were not directly involved in the Libyan invasion?
Does President Hope&Change even care what a hypocrite he looks like when, after the Democrat-media complex blamed the likes of Sarah Palin and right-wing radio for creating an air of “incivility,” he goes around the country praising figures who call his ideological opponents “sons of bitches” and “barbarians at the gate,” and voices his support for the hate-filled, violent and destructive Occupy Wall Street?
Does Veep Biden realize what an imbecile he looks like when he accuses Republicans of being responsible for violent crimes and robberies in cities like Flint, Michigan when it has precisely been liberal Democrats like Biden who for 40+ freaking years have enacted policies that have aided and abetted such crimes and coddled their perpetrators?
Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid realize what a moron he looks like when he actually states with a straight face that the private sector is doing fine, that it’s the public sector that needs rescuing? (Oh did you hear, this week Washington, D.C. became the nation’s richest city.)
Do the DBF* media realize what blatantly biased Democrat mouthpieces they are when they continue to act as cheerleaders for the hateful, violent, extremist Occupy protests while at the same time smearing the peaceful, patriotic Tea Party as such?
Do the “fleabaggers” attending the Occupy protests realize (or even care) that, if they are truly angry about the state of the economy and unemployment in this country, they are aiming their rage at the wrong targets?
Do the Occupiers realize what hypocrites they are when they are joined by multi-millionaires like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons, and Kanye West? Multi-millionaires
Yes, to be a liberal Democrat means to occupy a world irrevocably divorced from reality and to act like an utter hypocrite.
But while all the above are examples of this, the one that takes the cake is the Democrat-media complex’s treatment of Herman Cain. For seven years now, they have worshiped Barack Hussein Obama like a god and willingly ignored (or openly celebrated) his radical Marxist-socialist past.
And anyone who had the audacity to criticize President Golden Calf, from Rush Limbaugh to the Tea Party, were smeared as hateful racists who “just don’t like a black man in the White House.” The news media like the NY Times and MSNBC still say it. Self-appointed spokespeople for the black community like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say it. And celebrity blowhards like Jeneane Garofalo, Joy Behar, Harry Belafonte, Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson say it.
Liberal/Democrats’ Public Enemy #1
So now that Herman Cain is hitting the top of the GOP polls, what do all these wizards of smart have to say? First, political genius Jeneane Garofalo told an approving Keith Olbermann that the Tea Party was supporting Cain simply to hide their racism. Karl Rove, she went on to say, keeps his racism very covert. Which is weird since Rove is an establishment “Beltway” Republican and is most likely not even backing a Tea Party conservative like Cain, just as he was not supporting a Sarah Palin candidacy.
O.K., whatever helps you sleep at night, Jeneane.
But what is the most hypocritical is how the Democrat-media complex are themselves treating Herman Cain. All the racism and condescension and hostility they projected upon Obama’s critics they are now all overtly enacting upon Cain!
On MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell conducted a thoroughly insulting, abusive and condescending interview with Cain. (To its credit, the left-leaning Atlantic called O’Donnell out on that.)
Even more outrageously, people have called Cain—a black man, mind you—a “bigot” and a “racist.” (Wait, I didn’t think black people could be racists. I’m so confused!) Among those hurling those accusations are the Obama-worshiping NY Times, the Obama-worshiping Time Magazine, and the Obama-worshiping NY Times again.
Democrat strategist Cornell Belcher has even called into question the authenticity of Cain’s blackness, as has Princeton’s most humiliating hire, “Professor” Cornel West and PBS’s affirmative action hire Tavis Smiley. Hugo Chávez’s pal Harry Belafonte has called him a “bad apple” and a “false Negro.”
A nice Yahoo! News contributor even declares that Herman Cain’s existence proves that “minorities can be racist too.” (Isn’t that nice? I wonder where this cupcake was when Obama was palling around with Malik Zulu “Kill Cracker Babies!” Shabbazz and the New Black Panthers. Where is she while Obama’s A.G. Eric Holder has made it the official policy of the DOJ not to pursue cases with black defendants such as the aforementioned New Black Panthers?)
It’s already started, people. Just as Sarah Palin was the target of the most hateful, sexist, misogynist, and violent rhetoric from the Democrat-media complex, so is Herman Cain already getting the “lynch the n*gger” treatment from the same people. And it’s going to get worse and worse.
Just sit back and watch the racism continue to come from the party of slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow from now until 2012. Herman Cain is on a roll and if there’s one thing the Democrat Party can’t stand, it’s a black man who’s left the plantation. If Herman Cain happens to win the GOP nomination and then capture the White House, watch the Democrats expose their hate and racism even more.
Related reading: Cain in the Cross-Hairs (Robert Stacy McCain)
*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
For weeks now my liberal Jewish friends have been praising the filthy spoiled-brat group temper tantrum known as OWS -- and even participating in it during Yom Kippur and Sukkot (!). Meanwhile, the DBF* media has predictably failed to accurately report on the now-nationwide event. Among the most disturbing aspects of OWS -- and there are many, from calls to behead and eat "the rich" to converging on private citizens' personal residences to bullying NYC officials into postponing Zuccotti Park cleanup or face riotous consequences -- is the blatant widespread antisemitism.
In a piece earlier this week in Commentary called "Occupy Wall Street Has an Anti-Semitism Problem," Abe Greenwald writes:
Anti-Semitism is the preferred medium of the pitchfork crowd. And today as the Manhattan mob heads uptown to protest at the homes of American business leaders (for their “”willingness to hoard wealth at the expense of the 99 percent”) there can be little doubt that that’s whom we’re dealing with.
Outside of immigrant-rich America, class warfare is often synonymous with ethnic prejudice itself. The Jews or the Gypsies or the Southeast Asians simply constitute the class to be held accountable. Class warfare is the pointed finger as economic philosophy. It eats away at the national project, lays waste to the self-reliant citizen, and disguises prejudice as justice. Liberal pundits and leftist intellectuals are at pains to impose upon the protesters a thoughtfulness that just doesn’t exist. In the New York Times, Todd Gitlin wrote, “This new protest style is more Rousseau than Marx.” But in truth there is no new protest style. What we’re witnessing is dumb, ugly, dangerous, and very old. And we will see a lot more anti-Semitism as this toxic swarm grows.
Indeed, antisemitism exists not just in the trenches but at the top of OWS. It seems OWS is the brainchild of an antisemitic anti-capitalist organization from Canada called Adbusters, which registered an occupywallstreet.org domain name only months in advance of the protests. Jeff at the Protein Wisdom blog reports:
Adbusters has a history of (thinly-veiled) anti-Semitism — and today’s protests against “Wall Street” and “bankers” is merely an extension of its earlier protests against the controlling cabal of “neocons.”
Adbusters sees filthy, sneaky Jews everywhere — and everywhere this stealthy cabal of neocons, bankers, and Zionists, is controlling the world, robbing The People, and hoarding The Wealth.
This fact has been pointed out in the right-osphere, including by El Rushbo at least twice. But the Adbusters-OWS connection is virtually nowhere in the DBF media. Isn't that interesting?
Among the first to report on OWS antisemitism was Glenn Beck (ironic, since I know of no Jewish liberal friends who are not scared to death of this guy! Go figure.)
Here's a Blaze piece from last Thursday (the 6th) with video of an OWS protester complaining how the Jews control Wall Street and even accusing Obama of being a Jewish puppet:
On Wednesday afternoon, The Blaze posted a video of a man telling the crowd that “the Jews control Wall St.” and spouting anti-Semitic hate.
So a GBTV cameraman and I decided to go down to the center of the protests later that day to see if we could find the man behind the comments and ask him a few questions. We found him. And he was more than happy to explain himself.
Who is he? Well, the only name he would give me is “Jesus.” He told me he’s homeless and going blind. And when I asked him about his former anti-Semitic remarks, he was sure to go in-depth on his views, as well as hold up his sign with Atlas-like determination.
He’s convinced that Jews have a “firm grip” on the media and the country’s finances. He even tried to selectively quote scripture to back up his case. That said, he claims he’s not against all Jews, just the ones who are “robbing” America or aren’t speaking out about their “bretheren” who are. Considering his comments, I asked if he would be in favor of a tax on just rich Jews. His response? “That sounds good, but all billionaires.” ...
If you think his answers are a bunch of confusion wrapped in a conundrum, you’re not alone. And it’s about to get even more perplexing. See, after hearing his obvious anti-Jewish remarks, I asked him why he decided to single out the Jews. He responded by saying he “loves” Jews but he’s “tired of them swindling us:” ...
At this post from yesterday, the Blaze posts this follow-up, this time from Occupy Los Angeles:
The Blaze was one of the first to report on the anti-Semitism plaguing Occupy Wall Street. While not shocking given the movement’s track record, photographs from Occupy Los Angeles have now surfaced also revealing definite anti-Semitic messages. The age-old “Jewish banker” conspiracy theory being the most common thread across the various “Occupy” movements.
Pajama’s Zombie was first to publish the latest crop of offensive images straight out of OWS/OLA:
All Los Angeles photos and video here were taken by Ringo, and will appear in future reports at Ringo’s Pictures. This is the first time any of them have been shown online.
To view the rest of this post and photos please click here.
Excellent footage courtesy of the folks at Zombietime, who also provided oodles of footage of Bush-hatred during the "peace" protests of the 2000's.
"Bookworm" at Bookworm Room has a well-written post and accompanying video on the matter:
Antisemitism in connection with OWS was a no-brainer. The Left is antisemitic. It has been since Marx. Hitler institutionalized it to deadly effect. Stalin was less methodical than Hitler, but he made Judaism illegal and instituted various pogroms within his own party to drive out, imprison or kill Jews.
No matter how many Jews are on the Left (and Jews are, unforgivably, still drawn there), the Left understands that Judaism in the abstract stands for individualism and justice, two notions antithetical to collectivism. The Left has also historically conflated Jews with capitalism. Jews, of course, aren’t the onlycapitalists (statistically, they’re only a small percentage of capitalists); they’re just visible capitalists if you’re a Jew hater.
In the coming days and weeks, you’re going to see an increasing number of articles and videos in the conservative media about the increasing antisemitism connected with the Occupy this city and that city. Today, we’ll start with just two: a photo essay from L.A. and a video, which you can see below:
My questions for you: How long do you think it will be before the MSM pays attention? Or, an even better question, do you think the MSM will ever pay attention? Same question[s] regarding leading Democrat politicians, such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid….
You might be wondering how, in light of all this evidence, my liberal Jewish friends and relatives are reacting. After linking to some of these stories over the week on Facebook, the responses have fallen into basically two camps: First and foremost is pooh-poohing: "Sure, there are a couple of kooks at protests, just like the Tea Party. So what's the big deal? You can't paint an entire movement with such a broad brush!"
To which I adamantly reply: WRONG! For one thing, these aren't a couple of kooks, these antisemites are rampant and are among the leadership of OWS. As I explained above, antisemitism exists at the top of the OWS. As far as the "couple of kooks" at Tea Party goes -- and that was when the kooks weren't simply left-wing infiltrators sent in by DailyKos or MoveOn.org to deliberately make the Tea Party look bad -- the Democrat-media went out of its way to paint the Tea Party with their broad brush! In fact, today as prominent liberals in Washington, the media, and Hollywood praise OWS they still bash the Tea Party! The hypocrisy is enough to make one's head spin!
A second type of response I got from liberal Jewish Facebook friends was one of disgust ... towards me! Some apparently are offended that I would be so callous as to smear this innocent noble group of victims by posting such slanderous material!
To conclude, let me say that if you are a Jew and you are even attending let along holding freaking Yom Kippur worship at OWS, you are what Vladimir Lenin would have called a useful idiot. And believe me, that is being kind. I could've said it's like you're digging the graves that you will be falling into once your Nazi captors shoot you in the back. (But I won't say that 'cuz that would be mean-spirited!)
* DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
Recent Comments