This AT article by Daren Jonescu dovetails nicely with what Mark Levin has called the Statist's war on the individual.
What's hysterical is that there is in fact one individual Obama always puts above everyone else -- and that's himself: I (not we) got bin Laden, I (not we) saved the auto industry, I (not we) created 5 million jobs, ad nauseam. What can be more frightening than a narcissist preaching collectivism?
President Obama inadvertently reveals his true post-Marxist colors at every turn, but perhaps nowhere more starkly than in his irresistible impulse to look Americans in the eye and say, "This isn't about you." What is sometimes (correctly) described as his coldness is, more precisely, the lifelong leftist's pathological habit of converting concrete human lives into an abstract, "composite" humanity which, to his corrupted intellect, seems more real than life itself. ...
This one's good too: Let's Talk About Lies:
Romney can say something to the effect of "let's talk about lies" and explain that breaking a promise is a definition for lying. He can then rattle off five or six instances when Obama and his administration have broken promises to the American people.
Romney can say things like:
The president promised America that his $800-billion stimulus package wouldn't ship jobs overseas. Instead, ABC News reported that 80% of stimulus money spent on wind power went to foreign firms...including some in China.
The president promised America that if his stimulus package passed, unemployment would never be over 8%. Instead, since the president took office, we haven't seen the underside of 8% unemployment until several days ago when, after so many people have given up hope and stopped looking for work, the number dropped to 7.8%.
The president promised America that he would cut a $1.3-trillion deficit in half by his first term. Instead, he has added $1 trillion to the deficit every year he has been in office.
The president promised America that ObamaCare would reduce health care costs. Instead, ObamaCare has raised insurance premiums by $800 to $1,400, although some people have gotten a rebate from the insurance companies...of about $150.
The president promised that he wouldn't allow any tax increase of any kind on those making less than $250,000. Instead, ObamaCare is the largest tax increase in U.S. history. In fact, there are at least 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses under ObamaCare. These taxes will destroy -- not create, but destroy -- jobs. That is yet another broken promise.
The president promised America that he would stop the influence of cronyism -- of "well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists," as he put it. Instead, in his first three years in office, we saw more than $1.5 billion more in spending by lobbyists than in the previous three years.
The president promised America he would and will invest revenue (which means he will spend your tax dollars or borrow money from China) to grow green companies. Instead, 80% of the time, the green energy loans went to backers of the president. This is simply cronyism. And the companies he spends your money on don't even grow; they go bankrupt time and timeagain! He loses jobs as fast as he "creates" them. Two steps "Forward!" and three steps backward is not progress by any rational definition.
The president promised America to make the borders safe. Instead, the DOJ oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, where thousands of guns went untracked to drug cartels in Mexico, killing Americans as well as Mexicans.
The president promised America transparency. Instead, after months of congressional investigations being stonewalled by the DOJ and Attorney General Eric Holder, the president finally took action...and promptly covered it up. He invoked executive privilege to keep the documents away from the light of Congress. ...
As any regular reader of this blog will know, I cannot stand Bill Maher. I think he is utterly foul and caustic, and there is probably not one thing he says about politics that I agree with him on.
However, one thing I do respect about him is that he has the intellectual integrity to bring on guests to whom he is ideologically opposed and will engage in feisty debate. I think that's why the Fox News analyst/commentator programs are more popular than most other similar cable shows because even though most of the hosts lean conservative, they invite guests from all ranges of the spectrum.
And so, here is my girl Ann on Maher's show a few days ago to discuss her new book "Mugged" (which is excellent, by the way) and other issues of the day.
WARNING: There is a point where Maher calls Obama a "Rockefeller Republican." Please make sure you are not drinking, eating anything spicy, or sitting on a chair that is easy to fall off of.
Who's Karen Vaughn, you ask? Good question. Her son Aaron was a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan a couple months after the Osama bin Laden killing. Now Vaughn and other parents of dead officers want answers from the Obama administration why they "put a target on" her son's back by publicly spiking the football and divulging information that should've remained classified.
The administration, no surprise, isn't spilling any beans now. In fact, they're quite tight-lipped now! And parents are getting pissed.
This, of course, is not the first time parents of dead warriors are demanding answers from the POTUS. And that's why Tom Blumer at NewsBusters is wondering out loud why Maureen Dowd has to date no article on the "absolute moral authority" of Karen Vaughn.
You see, back in 2005, Dowd and the rest of the DBF* media helped make one Cindy Sheehan a national celebrity for demanding answers from the Bush administration about her son Casey's death. Yet every news outlet except Fox has yet to even mention Karen Vaughn, let alone turn her into a cause célèbre.
Blumer asks Dowd:
So, MoDo -- Doesn't Mrs. Vaughn have "absolute moral authority" over Barack Obama, a president living in "meta-insulation" which dwarfs that of Bush 43, who has "burrowed" into over 100 rounds of golf, endless campaign fundraisers, and celebrity schmoozing, and whose administration is so consumed by the need for self-promotion that it would rather leak details of a secret operation and even allow a preelection movie about it to be produced and released regardless of "the human consequences" of its actions?
If so, the least you could do is say so. If Mrs. Vaughn has somehow not earned "absolute moral authority," do tell us why.
I know why, and, of course, so does Blumer: Because then the president was a reviled Republican and now the president is a lauded Democrat. Dowd had no journalistic principles, intellectual honesty or professional integrity then, why would she now? Cindy Sheehan, of course, was no mere grieving mother; she was a fervent radical leftist anti-war advocate who traveled the world to publicly shill for the enemy. Yet a women who IMO should have been tried for treason was lionized by the DBF media for well over a year during the Bush administration.
The media used Sheehan as a pawn to get to Bush the way they couldn't. They have no such use for Karen Vaughn or any military parent critical of the Obama administration.
As long as leftist hacks like Maureen Dowd occupy the lofty offices of the NY Times building, there will be "moral absolute authority" for some, not for others.
DBF* = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
In case you didn't know, the beginning of October marked the point where, under Obama(Doesn't)Care Section 6001, physician-owned hospitals are banned from being started, existing ones prohibited from expanding. This improves our health care system how? It doesn't.
But just keep saying everyone's covered, covered, covered. We're all covered, covered, covered. Covered, covered, covered. Like a bunch of freaking sheep. Free colonoscopies! Free condoms! Free free free! Covered covered covered! Republican war on women! Ryan hates Grandma! Romney hates Big Bird! Free free free! Covered covered covered!
Meanwhile, things aren't going terribly swimmingly in the U.K., whose utopian health care system was the envy of Obama administration members and other Democrats who crafted Obamacare:
"Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today." ...
The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.
They will also fuel concerns about care homes, as it was disclosed that eight people starved to death and 21 people died of thirst while in care.
Last night there were warnings that they must prompt action by the NHS and care home regulators to prevent further deaths among patients.
The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:
* as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;
* there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals;
* 78 hospital and 39 care home patients were killed by bedsores, while a further 650 people who died had their presence noted on their death certificates;
* 21,696 were recorded as suffering from septicemia when they died, a condition which experts say is most often associated with infected wounds. ...
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said the statistics were a grim and shaming reflection of 21st century Britain.
"These are people's mothers, fathers, and grandparents," she said. "It is hard enough to lose a loved one, but to find out that they died because they were not adequately fed or hydrated, is a trauma no family should have to bear."
Michelle Mitchell, Charity Director of Age UK, described the figures as "deeply distressing" given that such deaths were avoidable.
There are more dire statistics in the rest of the article.
Rick Moran at AT asks: Under Obamacare, it will never get this bad, will it? Umm, probably.
So everyone ask your Obama(Doesn't)Care supporting friends:
Q: What do the 43 British hospital or home care patients dead from starvation, 326 from malnourishment, 661 from dehydration, 884 from bedsores, and 27,796 from septicemia (blood poisoning from infected wounds) all have in common?
A: They were all covered by government-run health care!
As Papa Josef Stalin said: One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. FORWARD!
There's a reason I started calling liberals "illiberals". If the shoe fits ...
Thomas Sowell has said it, as have Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Star Parker, Daneen Borelli, Angela McGlowan, Lloyd Marcus, Alonzo Rachel, Bob Parks, and scores of others: If you're black and dare leave the Democrat plantation and join the supposedly racist Republicans, prepare to have every disgusting racist epithet thrown at you like stones at a Muslim woman accused of adultery.
Recently the left praised and enthusiastically spread a pro-Obama video starring Samuel L. Jackson dropping the f-bomb all over the place -- including single-digit-aged children also dropping the f-bomb toward those who would dare oppose Dear Leader.
Now, the same "tolerant" left is pillorying no-longer-Clueless black actress Stacey Dash because she announced her support for Mitt Romney.
If you want to show your support for Ms. Dash, tweet with the hatchtag: #ISupportStaceyDash.
In what El Rushbo calls a "random act of journalism" ABC News's Jake Tapper actually reports on revelations that the State Department was asked for heavier security in Libya in the months leading up to the September 11 consulate attack. That request was denied.
This, as far as I'm concerned, should be front page news and the top story on all the news stations. Remember when the littlest discrepancy by the Bush administration was blown up into the impeachable scandal of the century?
Every time I hear Obama say Romney is "just churning out the same ideas that we saw in the decade before I took office . . . the same tax cuts and deregulation agenda that helped get us into this mess in the first place," it makes my skin crawl. So thank you, John Merline at IBD, for writing this piece tearing apart that and four other bogus claims: Obama's Re-Election Case Rests On 5 Phony Claims
David Firestone at the NY Times' editorial blog "taking note" is suspicious of Paul Ryan's tax plan. In fact, the folks at the Times have been suspicious of everything Romney and Ryan are proposing.
So just getting this straight ... We have a president who:
- promised to lower the deficit yet has instead increased it by 50%;
- promised with a $trillion "stimulus" to bring unemployment down to 6% yet has made it stay above 8% and yield anemic GDP growth;
- promised job opportunities for any American willing to work yet has spent less time with his jobs council than he has at 40,000-per-plate celebrity fundraisers, campaign events, TV show junkets, and golf outings;
- gave billions of said stimulus cash to cronies whose businesses have gone bankrupt;
- promised transparency yet has invoked executive privilege to hide his and his Attorney General's involvement in the 200+death "Fast and Furious" scandal, and has yet to come clean in knowing about yet failing to prevent attacks on our consulate in Libya which killed four Americans;
- promised his "health" "care" plan would lower premiums by $2,500 while instead they have increased by $3,000;
- not to mention that members of the Obama administration itself owes $800,000 in back taxes
... and you're spending time screaming about supposed flaws of Paul Ryan's tax plan?
Careful, NYT - Continue carrying on like this you might be accused of some sort of media bias.
Perish the thought.
Last week I attended a four-day Jewish conference. Having attended it several times over the past several years, I am fully aware of the prominently left-liberal leanings of the crowd (which has comprised anywhere from 500-1200 people).
That has meant righties like myself have had to tread lightly when political discussions come up. I pick my battles carefully and stick in my two shekels only when I’m pretty sure my audience is somewhat open to debate without confrontation or ad hominem attacks. In fact, my usual contingent of friends at this conference—all left-of-center—know where I stand and we’ve actually engaged in lively debates around the meal tables.
Anyone else of my ideological ilk at this conference I’ve been able to count on one hand. And I didn’t expect that to change this year ‘round. But what follows is something I did not expect:
Someone at this year’s conference thought it would be a good idea to hold lunchtime discussions on various topics regarding Judaism, but the one that caught my eye immediately was, “Barack or Mitt: Who’s better for the Jews.” Assuming I was going to be the token Romney supporter, I eventually mustered up enough courage to sign up for that one.
When I walked into the classroom there were only three other people. None of us had met before and after introductions I immediately assumed I was going to be the lone Romney supporter: There was a woman in her late 40’s/early 50’s from Washington State, a young woman around 30 who was from Boston and a graduate of the very left-feminist Bryn Mawr College, and a young man in his early 20’s from Washington, D.C.
Well, you can imagine my surprise when both young people explained how their constantly being surrounded by nonstop liberal ism had turned them into hard core Republicans! Granted, their social predilections were more on the liberal side but still, these two young people knew well enough to vote Republican in 2008 and they were definitely going to it again in November. Only the older woman was a Democrat, and even she said she was coming to this discussion with an open mind about the other side!
About 45 minutes into our discussion, during which we three Republicans were as respectful and tolerant toward the lone Democrat as possible, a fifth person came in. He was around 70 and I’ve known him through this conference for many years. He’s your staunch liberal Democrat, and during those Bush years, he and I had gone back and forth quite passionately, so his entrance into the debate really riled things up. Still, at this Jewish conference, Republicans still outnumbered Democrats.
Then another woman (mid 50’s?) came in to the classroom, but not to join the convsersation. She was delivering the workshop that was scheduled in that room following lunch and came early to set up. Well, not even five minutes after our conversation continued, that woman piped in from the opposite corner of the room, and proceeded to deliver the most delicious anti-Obama rant I’d heard all week!
So, to tally up, at a conference of around 500 predominantly liberal Jews, I was sitting in a classroom where people were invited to discuss the upcoming presidential election and Romney supporters outnumbered Obamabots 2-1!
Where were the other Obama supporters, I thought? Were they busy participating at a lunch conversation in another classroom? Why were they not here making a case for their Golden Calf?
Whatever the reason, you can imagine I left that lunch discussion a little more optimistic about Obama and the Jewish vote. Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware he’ll get the majority of us. But it seems it won’t be as much as last time around.
The latest from Mark Steyn:
... Instead of roads and bridges, Obama-sized government funds stasis and sclerosis: The Hoover Dam of regulatory obstruction, the Golden Gateway to dependency.
Last month, 80,000 Americans signed on to new jobs, but 85,000 Americans signed on for Social Security disability checks. Most of these people are not "disabled" as that term is generally understood. Rather, it's the U.S. economy that's disabled, and thus Obama incentivizes dependency. What Big Government is doing to those 85,000 "disabled" is profoundly wicked. Let me quote a guy called Mark Steyn, from his last book:
"The evil of such a system is not the waste of money but the waste of people. Tony Blair's ministry discovered it was politically helpful to reclassify a chunk of the unemployed as 'disabled.' A fit, able-bodied 40-year-old who has been on disability allowance for a decade understands somewhere at the back of his mind that he is living a lie, and that not just the government but his family and his friends are colluding in that lie."
Millions of Americans have looked at the road ahead, and figured it goes nowhere. Best to pull off into the Social Security parking lot. Don't worry, it's not your fault. As the president would say, you didn't build the express check-in to the Disability Office. Government built it, and, because they built it, you came.
In Obama's "visions," he builds roads and bridges. In reality, the President of Dependistan has put nothing but roadblocks in the path to opportunity and growth. That he can build. That's all he can build.
It boggles the mind the pro-Obama/Democrat anti-Republican propaganda that passes for news. With each new day the DBF* media seems to outdo itself. Today was no exception.
The Obama administration is ostensibly nervous about not winning the election even after having secured the votes of blacks, Jews who cherish liberalism more than they treasure Judaism and Israel, single sexually active women who think Republican men want them back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, illegal aliens and their sympathizers, and the dead in Florida and other states that have been prohibited by Obama’s DOJ from purging illegitimate names off the voting rolls. So last week, with virtually no DBF media coverage, Obama has bought the vote of another large swath of the American public: welfare recipients.
If you get your news from mainstream news outlets like the NY Times, you probably didn’t even know that last week President Hope&Change illegally sidestepped Congress again by yet again declaring a piece of legislation pratically null and void. With yet another unconstitutional swipe of the president’s magic wand, the work requirement for welfare recipients has been rescinded. Isn’t that nice? Bill Clinton’s signature 1996 welfare reform bill, which weaned millions of Americans off welfare and into jobs, completely gutted.
(You know, after everything Barack Obama has done to put his boot on the throat of the U.S. economy and stifle job growth, it would have been nearly impossible to think of any other way to make the situation even worse. So you got to hand it to him: He actually met that challenge with flying colors. Allowing welfare recipients to keep getting their government handouts without being required to look for work. Nice job, Mr. President. Nice job.)
Now, after several days of hardly a mention in the mainstream news, the NY Times finally had a piece on it yesterday. Except the piece is spun in a way so as to protect Obama and to paint objecting Republicans in a bad light [h/t Clay Waters at TimesWatch].
Some liberal hack posing as a journalist by the name of Rebecca Berg writes what is essentially an Obama press release:
A move by the Obama administration to give states more latitude in running federal welfare-to-work programs has set off a firestorm among Republicans, who say it undercuts the work requirements set forth in the 1996 overhaul of welfare policy.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it would grant states waivers to experiment with how they administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which distributes aid to the poorest Americans while they look for work.
The directive results from a broader effort by the Obama administration to peel back unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and allow states to spend federal money more efficiently. But Republicans, who characterize the move as a power grab by the executive branch, have criticized the waivers, saying they prove that the president and Democrats support providing welfare money without encouraging the recipients to find work.
Note that every Democrat talking point is conveyed as straight objective fact, while straight objective facts are tainted with phrases like “Republicans say …”. It’s a subtle but very effective weapon in the liberal media bias arsenal. By wrapping certain points as words uttered by Republicans, the author is essentially telling her reader: “Don’t pay attention to this point. It’s being made by a hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic Republican!”
From the very title, the piece is infected with this bias: “Shift in Welfare Policy Draws G.O.P. Protests.” Note that the focus is not on the so-called shift in welfare policy—which is where it should be—but rather on “draws G.O.P. protests”. The subliminal message is: “Something Obama did has tied Republicans’ panties in a wad.” To which the reader is expected to respond, “Good! Whatever it is, I agree with it!”
And what’s up with the choice of the sanitized word “shift”. It’s not a shift, it’s an obliteration! What a complete whitewash. To consider how inane the wording of that title is, imagine on December 8, 1941 the Times publishes: “Shift in Pearl Harbor Layout Draws Republican Protests.” or September 12, 2001: “Shift in Lower Manhattan Draws Republican Protests.”
Incidentally, an earlier working title read Welfare-to-Work Shift Angers Republicans. (Did someone at the Times think specifying “welfare-to-work” was too detrimental to Obama so they cut it out?) You can see this in the article's URL. Busted!
Just looking at the first few paragraphs of the body and you can tell this is going to be a doozy. Essentially, Democrat talking points are delivered as mere unquestionable fact. Consider the first paragraph: “Move to give the states more latitude in running federal welfare-to-work programs?” What a load of B.S. is an unfounded talking point (or at the very least the biased opinion of the author—but certainly not fact) that Obama’s unlawful dictatorial tampering of the welfare law does any such thing. Does Ms. Berg believe for one second that an administration that has constantly crapped on the Tenth Amendment gives a frog’s fat rear end about states’ latitude in running anything??
Berg does it again in the third paragraph: “The directive results from a broader effort by the Obama administration to peel back unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and allow states to spend federal money more efficiently”?? Again, this is not presented as quotation by some administration member but as straight fact. But who in their right mind would believe this, given that the Obama administration’s entire legacy is that it has created unnecessary layers of bureaucracy (ever heard of ObamaCare???) and to oversee the most egregiously inefficient spending of federal money (by states or otherwise)??
Now let’s get to the underhanded “Republicans say X, so just dismiss it outright because they’re … well, Republicans!” bias trick:
First paragraph: “set off a firestorm among Republicans, who say it undercuts the work requirements set forth in the 1996 overhaul of welfare policy.” First of all, the issue is not that Republicans say it undercuts the work requirements set forth in the 1996 overhaul of welfare policy, but that it by all accounts does undercut the work requirements of the policy!
Next paragraph: “But Republicans, who characterize the move as a power grab by the executive branch, have criticized the waivers, saying they prove that the president and Democrats support providing welfare money without encouraging the recipients to find work.”
Again, the issue is neither that Republicans are charactarizing the move as a power grab by the executive branch, nor that Republicans have criticized the waivers, nor that Republicans are saying they prove that the president and Democrats support providing welfare money without encouraging the recipients to find work! It is obvious to any sentient human being that the move is a power grab by the executive branch (and definitely not the first!), that the waivers are worthy of criticism, and that they do prove that the president and Democrats support providing welfare money without encouraging the recipients to find work!
Thus, a NY Times written by an objective journalist, rather than a mouthpiece for the Obama administration, would have read something like this:
Obama Sidesteps Congress, Unilaterally Enacts Shift in Welfare Policy
A move that the Obama administration claims gives states more latitude in running federal welfare-to-work programs undercuts the work requirements set forth in the 1996 overhaul of welfare policy.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it would grant states waivers to experiment with how they administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which distributes aid to the poorest Americans while they look for work.
The directive, the Obama administration explains, results from a broader effort to peel back unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and allow states to spend federal money more efficiently. But the move is a power grab by the executive branch, and the waivers suggest that the president and Democrats support providing welfare money without encouraging the recipients to find work.
There, much better. And if some of you are thinking that now it’s too biased in my direction, then sue me!
* DBF = Democrat b*tt-f**king
My Facebook page is always alight with passionate political debate. When 75% of your friends consist of liberal-Democrat Jews, how could it not! Many a never-to-be-recovered minutes have been spent pointlessly debating issues like the state of the economy, the Obama(Doesn't)Care ruling, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's recall election, presumptive GOP candidate Mitt Romney, and everything in between.
So, yesterday I got "friend-ed" by one of those aforementioned liberal-Democrat Jew types from college. Within minutes of accepting his request this morning, my news feed was adorned with liberal talking points and those annoying graphics purportedly debunking "GOP lies" and the "right-wing propaganda machine".
Here's one of those posts:
I remember exactly when Rush made this statement. He was responding to a statement made by Obama or one of his spokespeople (Carney, Geithner maybe) who told a news reporter that hiring more police, teachers, and firefighters constitute *private* sector employment. Rush has no animus toward firefighters, as falsely implied by this graphic! His point was that firefighters make up *public* sector jobs and paying them doesn't contribute to the economy b/c, like any public sector job, paying them requires taking money out of the *private* sector via taxation.
Watch out for snippets like this that take people's statements out of context to paint them as something they're not.
Having checked the Rush archives after the fact, I discovered it was David Axelrod who (along with Obama) said it. It was mid-June, soon after Obama ridiculously claimed that the private sector was doing fine and that it was the public sector was in trouble. Rush argued, correctly, that, like police and teachers, firefighters are mainly public sector jobs. In addition, while Obama and Axelrod (and Biden at one point earlier this year) were incorrectly claiming that there is a dearth of police and firefighters and teachers, Rush pointed out that these jobs are virtually all municipal and state responsibilities; the federal government should have little to no responsibility for such hirings.
That's why I responded to my very new very liberal Facebook friend. I knew he didn't know the context within which Rush made that comment.
One minute later he posted this retort:
If you're going to defend Rush, we really don't have anything to discuss.
So I wrote back:
OK, then. Adios.
And de-friended him.
So much for another day in Real-ville.
There are a lot of conservatives that complain about getting de-friended by liberal Facebook friends who weren't tolerant and open-minded enough to handle that someone else would have the audacity to have an opinion that doesn't match their own. I am one of them.
Well, here's an instance of me de-friending a liberal Facebook friend because of his political opinions.
And ya know what? I can live with that.
Let's see ... 10.9 U-3 unemployment rate, private sector growth of only 84,000 jobs, 14.4% black unemployment rate, 20.9% unemployment rate for white youths (16 to 19 y.o.), 39.3% unemployment rate for black youths?
Must be time for another ...
UPDATE, Sept. 4: ID also needed just to be near DNC in Charlotte
Dana Loesch wrote this morning:
At a recent Obama rally in Ohio, prospective attendees were told to brandish their photo IDs if they expected admittance to the rally. No word yet on whether Attorney General Eric Holder plans to file suit against the Obama campaign for infringing upon Ohioans' right of peaceful assembly by way of a racist photo ID rule.
Jessica Kershaw, the Obama campaign's Ohio Press Secretary, confirmed in a statement to BuzzFeed that the campaign checked every supporter's identification at the door.
"We checked every ID at the door to make sure it matched with the name on the ticket that supporters filled out," she said. "We did this for every person who came in."
Since President Obama sides with Holder in thinking it's Racist™ for states to require photo identification to vote, he must be apoplectic at himself for discriminating against those who don't get state-issued photo IDs. By asking for rally-goers to provide photo ID before entry, the Obama campaign is silently sanctioning the effectiveness of photo identification.
These race-baiting vote-stealing Democrats are so full of cr@p it's coming out their ears.
Oh, you didn't know that this week we hit the 2,000 marker of troops killed in Afghanistan? If you get your news from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or PBS you probably don't. They didn't report it. To its credit, only CBS covered it. [h/t Tim Graham at NewsBusters]
Compare that to DBF* media coverage when that grim milestone was reached in Iraq. On that day in October, 2005, those channels devoted significant time discussing it, as well as opining how it would negatively affect then-President Bush's popularity. In fact, it was with a very noticeable relish that the DBF media clocked war deaths (mostly in Iraq). It was almost a standard part of nightly news reports and lib talk shows and was always a pretext for bashing the warmonger George W. Bush who, along with Dick "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!" Cheney, was sending innocent kids to die.
But this week's Afghanistan marker? Not a mention from all but one network news station. Gee, I wonder why ...
Here's another inconvenient truth you're not going to hear from the DBF media: According to JustForeignPolicy.org, in the 7 years of U.S. action in Afghanistan under Bush there were 575 troop deaths (82 per year). In the 3 1/2 year under Obama there have been 1,348 deaths (385 per year).
But you probably wouldn't get that information from ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC (and probably CBS too).
Nor are you going to hear any criticism of Obama war policy in Afghanistan, no grieving mothers-turned-activists, no Code Pink or ANSWER rallies, no Hollywood "actors" accusing President Hope&Change of sending innocent kids to die.
*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
So we finally hear from a professor who had President Hope&Change as a student ... and he doesn't want him re-elected. [h/t Drudge]:
- Roberto Unger, 65, is respected author and Brazilian politician
- Taught Obama about ‘reinventing democracy’ at Harvard Law School
- Professor was an adviser during the 2008 election campaign
By [U.K.] DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 17:17 EST, 17 June 2012 | UPDATED: 07:06 EST, 18 June 2012
A former professor of Barack Obama has turned against his one-time student and publicly urged voters not to re-elect him.
Roberto Unger posted a video on YouTube detailing the reasons why he believes the President does not deserve a second term in the White House.
Mr Unger, a prominent Brazilian politician and an adviser to Obama in 2008, said: ’President Obama must be defeated in the coming election. He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.’
The 65-year-old academic was in frequent contact with Mr Obama on his Blackberry throughout the last election campaign but has since decided that he no longer agreed with the President’s decisions.
His list of complaints against the President is a long one in the video entitled ‘Beyond Obama’.
The esteemed philosopher is scathing of Mr Obama’s plans to salvage America’s ailing economy, saying that his policy solely consists of ‘financial confidence and food stamps’.
He adds: ’He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices.’
The politician admits that if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the election ‘there will be a cost... in judicial and administrative appointments’.
Now, conservatives might be giddy about this news story: Yay, one of Obama’s own wants him out of office! But not so fast: Unger appears to be rejecting Obama because he hasn’t fundamentally changed the Unites States fast and substantively enough. Perusing his lectures, you will even discover he wasn’t a fan at all of the stimulus plan.
That’s the first thing that bothers me about his revelation. The second is that one is that this article appeared not in an American news source, but in the U.K.
Unger doesn’t hide the fact that he is an unabashed Leftist. His website conveniently has PDF scans of several of his published works.
Obama was Unger’s student in the late 1980’s. It can be assumed, therefore, he was exposed to Unger’s 1987 book, “Social Theory: Its Situation and Task”. In it are sections devoted to Marxism. In Unger’s defense, a quick scan of this section doesn’t reveal a glowing review of Marxism or of nations’ implementation of it.
This book, as well as another 1987 books “False Necessity” (republished in 2002) and “Plasticity into Power” are quite heavy academic reading. It is hard to tell from skimming certain chapters whether Unger overtly advocates Marxism/socialism over capitalism but he makes definitely clear that he is for societal change through evolutionary politics.
He also makes it clear that the direction for this change is necessarily and undoubtedly leftward, as explained in detail in his 1998 books “Democracy Realized: A Progressive Alternative” and “The Left Alternative.” In other words, in what would certainly make for lively classroom discussions, Unger puts forth ideas not for “stay the course” Leftism but a new, improved, evolved, better-faster-stronger (cue the Bionic Man music) Leftism.
This is the message he wanted to convey to his students and, likely, as an adviser to candidate Obama, his dream for an Obama presidency.
Make no mistake: Unger isn't endorsing Mitt Romney or any Republican. At the beginning of the very video in which Unger is denouncing Obama, he bellows with the sanctimony only a Leftist Ivy League professor can possess: "If the Republicans had their way, inequality would be greater than it already is."
(Hmm. I wonder how much money this guy who has taught at Harvard since the mid-1970's makes. What has he done with his own paycheck over the years to reduce "inequality"?)
As can be seen from the statements in the Daily Mail article, Unger is disappointed in Obama because he did not succeed in implementing that desired societal change.
Not for lack of trying, Prof. Unger! Unfortunately for you, as well as for Obama who was elected president under false pretenses, the American people and conservative opponents in Congress just had something to say about your ideas for fundamentally changing this nation.
Going back at least as far as last weekend, especially in light of the Democrats' recall loss in Wisconsin, the DBF* media has been playing up this narrative that poor Obama has been having a "bad week."
On Monday, Rush didn't quite see it that way:
Everybody is talking about how Obama had a bad week last week. Really?
- He didn't ever have to explain his membership in the New Party.
- He wasn't asked a single question about Fast and Furious or Eric Holder's corrupt Justice Department.
- He wasn't asked to explain his political cowardice when he refused to go to Wisconsin, stand shoulder to shoulder with his union buddies.
- He played golf.
- He was compared favorably to the Kardashians.
- There's not gonna be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the national security leaks.
All this talk about what a bad week Obama had? Maybe, but, then again, you could see where it maybe wasn't.
But it was yesterday that Rush really had it with the media's incessent "Obama having a bad week" meme. Fed up, he argued essentially that no, Obama wasn't having a bad week; we, the American people, were instead having a bad three years.
Listen to the master expound on that sentiment below:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
* DBF = Democrat b*tt-f**king