Vocal Minority

Liberal Lie #7: Muslims Are at Risk Because of American Intolerance

[Part 2 here]

While the left in the media and in Washington are ignoring the plain-as-day fact that Malik Hasan's religion was the major factor pertaining to his shooting up Ft. Hood, they are shuddering over the perceived risk of rising Islamophobia.

What did Obama's DHS director Janet Napolitano do following the Ft. Hood shootings? She went to the United Arab Emirates and assured the Muslim world that she and her administration was doing everything in their power to thwart any American backlash against Muslims. She said “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith” and that the DHS was taking steps to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.”

This is the same woman who in April of this year labelled every white Christian right-of-center American, including veterans, from Maine to Hawaii as a terrorist.

Hateful Air America host (I know, that's redundant) Montell Williams is worried that us intolerant Americans are going to call for internment camps for U.S. Muslims a la WWII-era camps for Japanese Americans (which was created by the left's favorite Democrat FDR, by the way.)

The ever-reliable Huffington Post, reported that Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. were "bracing for the backlash." That was November 5. It's now November 13. Wonder if that backlash is going to happen anytime soon ...

CBS News reported on how in the wake of the shootings, mosques nationwide are beefing up security. Notice how the double standard works: When a Muslim commits murder, it is the perpetrator's institutions (mosques) need protection. But when a Christian fundamentalist killed abortion doctor George Tiller, it was the victim's institution (abortion clinics) that needed protection.

Even the Associated Press - without citing a single example - reports on the immediate backlash against Muslims after the Ft. Hood massacre.

 

["Blind Spot" by Zack R. at Diversity Lane]

Anyway, good thing the left took steps to protect Muslims from the intolerance of non-Muslim Americans.

Because, just like after 9/11, there was a wave of Islamophobia in America, right?

Because, just like after 9/11, there was a massive rise in hate crimes against Muslims in America, right?

Because, just like after 9/11, Muslims America had legitimate cause to fear for their lives in their homes and in their mosques, right?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The politically-correct leftocracy wouldn't want you to know this, but hate crimes against Muslims has dropped significantly since 2001 [h/t IBD Editorials via Gateway Pundit]:

 

In fact, whenever we hear of a Muslim being killed in this country it's always ... wait for it ... at the hands of Muslims! It seems every month or so we hear another story of a Muslim teenage girl being murdered (violently, I might add) by her father or brother. And the leftocracy either ignores it or explains it away in diversity-obsessed fashion as just part of their culture.

Oh look! Jewish hate crimes are pretty damn high. Come to think of it, it seems every month or so there's news of a shooting at synagogues or (thankfully botched) synagogue bombing plot being carried out by ... wait for it ... Muslims!

I'm so tired of the left in this country adding insult to injury when first they ignore or excuse the religious connection every time a radical Muslim wreaks destruction or death, and then pointing an accusatory finger at Americans for imaginary intolerance.

There was no anti-Muslim backlash, people. And there isn't going to be, because even though the hate-America left doesn't want to believe it, Americans are still the most tolerant and open-minded people on the planet.

You know who is good at backlashes, though? Muslims! Ask the French. Ask the British. Ask the Danish. Ask the Israelis. How many beheadings, stabbings, shootings, exploded buildings, and burned automobiles does one need to read about before it sinks in???

But you would never hear the left express worry about Muslim backlashes. That would pop a crater-sized hole in their imaginary little liberal bubble.

Related reading: Mona Charen at JWR, Robert Spencer at Human Events.

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: Gen. George Casey Goes PC on Ft. Hood Massacre

I don't know if Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey is a liberal, but he sure talks like one:

Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.

— Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with David Gregory, November 7, 2009

Do you understand what this man is saying? He is saying that the loss of “diversity”—the feel-good, meaningless, superficial, and artificial practice of ensuring that a given group has x number of whites, blacks, men, women, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, etc., etc.—is worse than 13 people’s lives violently snuffed out in cold blood by a radical fanatic. In short, protecting a politically correct sacred cow is more important than protecting human life.

Take that in. Because it is the reason this massacre was allowed to occur.

Where are we as a society when even leaders in our military have admitted that ideology trumps human life?

What’s almost as disgusting is the tables being turned on the U.S. military and the American people by means of a completely unsupportable premise that the first thing that came to Americans’ minds following the massacre is something to the effect of, “That’s it, all Muslims out of the military. Let’s get back to basics here: White Christian men only!” This is insulting and unfortunately all too prominent in the thinking of the politically correct—including General Casey himself!

David Limbaugh puts it well in his latest article, “Suicidal Political Correctness”:

Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can’t criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities’ first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter—Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan—rather than to protect our soldiers. …

I’m not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn’t.

Does anyone really think we’re going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn’t the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?

Exactly. Everyone seems to be so concerned about this massacre causing Americans—always on the verge of rampant intolerance and bigotry—to want to abdicate “diversity” or lead a backlash against Muslim soldiers. (Speaking of diversity, is anyone going to address that this Muslim fundamentalist refused to associate with women? Or does that clash too much with the liberal template that it’s only us Americans who are intolerant?)

This backward thinking will never solve the problem and will only result in more lost lives.

This massacre happened because the American people, the U.S. military, and the FBI—which willfully dropped the ball on this Hasan guy—were too tolerant. Only in this country does a radical fanatic carry out an act of terror (or whatever you want to call it) and then we are guilted into looking within ourselves and at our past actions to figure out why it happened. It’s like we learned nothing from 9/11.

There’s a bumper sticker that defines a liberal as “someone who’s so open-minded, their brains have fallen out.” That Hasan wasn’t preempted despite his documentable radical Islamic thoughts and ties is the textbook example of this. Thirteen innocent people, including a pregnant woman and her unborn child, were the casualties of brainless politically correct liberalism.

That this alternate-universe thinking has infiltrated our own military makes it very hard for this father of two young children to sleep at night.

Related reading: Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters, Mona Charen at Town Hall, Dennis Prager at JWR, Sacred Monkeys

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (11/3/09)

My favorite articles of the day …

On today’s closely-followed elections:

November 3, 2009 | USA Today
Don’t bury GOP yet: Prophecies of party’s demise this election are way overdone.
By Jonah Goldberg

After Obama’s presidential election, a cottage industry of punditry sprang up to forge a new conventional wisdom. It goes something like this: The Republican Party has been discredited by the Bush presidency, congressional scandals and overspending. Worse, it is “out of touch” due to the stranglehold of knuckle-dragging, troglodytic, Bible-thumping, gun-nuts and greedy capitalists. Confronted with the divine light of Obama, these hissing conservatives must scurry to the shadows like vampires fearful of the burning rays of the sun. The only chance for Republican survival is to embrace moderation, compromise and, in some cases, what Barry Goldwater called “me-too Republicanism.” Whatever the merits of this advice, two things are now quite clear.

First, most conservatives and Republicans have next to no desire to follow it. And, second, it looks like they’re right not to.

The Virginia contest alone shows that much of this talk about “moderates” vs. “extremists” or “pragmatists” vs. “ideologues” within the GOP was nonsense.

McDonnell is socially and economically very conservative, but he has dominated the race by focusing on mainstream issues such as transportation, taxes and the economy. Meanwhile, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been working overtime to recast the Democrats as big spenders more committed to an ideological agenda than setting the country right. As a result, independents — the same voters who delivered the election for Obama — are now flocking to the Republicans. McDonnell beats Democrat Creigh Deedsamong independents by 2-1.

The best illustration of the conservative comeback is the special election for the 23rd congressional district in New York (a district Obama carried in 2008). Before last Saturday, the race was being cast a “civil war” on the right because many conservatives were supporting not the Republican nominee, Dierdre Scozzafava, but Doug Hoffman, a Republican who switched to theConservative Party ticket when he failed to get the nomination. Scozzafava is a very liberal, pro-choice Republican, the sort of candidate the conventional wisdom says the right must embrace to stay relevant. Hoffman is a mainstream conservative. On Saturday, Scozzafava dropped out of the race because Hoffman was crushing her in the polls. Most tellingly, it was Hoffman’s support among independents that gave him the advantage.

There’s more than one way to read all of this. Independents might just want to be a counterweight to the Democratic Party’s lurch to the left. Corzine and Deeds might just be lousy candidates in a bad economy.

All of that’s true. But it’s also true that the GOP is not much interested in becoming a Democrat-lite party, and it seems voters don’t want it to, either.

On government-run health (s)care:

November 3, 2009 | Real Clear Politics
The “Costs” of Medical Care
By Thomas Sowell

… There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor’s office and more in taxes—or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

Costs are not reduced simply because you don’t pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive—but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance—and fewer people who can afford it.

Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors’ incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors’ offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work. …

Jewish World Review | Nov. 3, 2009
A Society that Venerates Lawyers More than Doctors
By Dennis Prager

… Nothing better illustrates the reorientation — indeed, the transformation — of values that will take place if the Democrats’ health care legislation is passed. Thanks to trial lawyer/Democratic influence, for decades, we have been moving in the direction of litigation-based society. But with a Democratic health care bill, the movement will accelerate exponentially.

Much of our money, our innovation, our creativity and our ingenuity will gravitate from medicine to law. …

No rational person argues that society doesn’t need law or lawyers, or that all lawyers, even trial lawyers, do no good. That is certainly not what is being argued here.

But it does say something about a society when those who sue physicians and hospitals make as much or more money than those who heal disease. It says something about a society when it glorifies and rewards those who litigate while it demonizes and punishes those who produce the drugs and devices that keep its citizens alive and well.

This is part of the upside-down world the left is bequeathing to us and our children in the name of health care “reform.”

On the Leftocracy’s continued pile-up on Rush Limbaugh:

American Thinker | November 02, 2009
The Vilification of Rush
By Kenneth L. Hutcherson

[NB: Ken “Hutch” Hutcherson is a former NFL player, a pastor, and an African-American. - ETR]

... The Minority Thought Pattern is aimed at destroying America, at rending the very fabric that makes America great. The Minority Thought Pattern denies the greatness, honor, bravery, courage, humility, and sacrifice that has brought us the power to be the greatest nation that has ever existed. The Minority Thought Pattern has a mission to undermine and redefine every characteristic of America, maintaining that it is a nation based on greed, cowardice, selfishness, and a lack of genuine humility. The Minority Thought Pattern is the reason for all the apologies to the rest of the world for how bad American is, coming even from our top leader. …

This is extremely personal to me. It’s about a friend. When I look at Rush, I don’t see a white man; I see a friend. I don’t see a talk show host (a very famous talk show host); I see a friend, and friendship overrides color and political stances. I don’t see a controversial figure, but a man whose heart and thoughts I know, and a man who is not a racist.

I believe with all my heart that minorities, especially African-Americans, will never be free until they stop allowing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to insist they adopt the mentality of victims. Likewise, they will not be free until they take the next bold step: start thanking God for America, and stop condemning the white male.

It is time for America to reject the Minority Thought Pattern and the hateful campaign against Rush Limbaugh.

On Obama’s dithering in Afghanistan and photo-op at Dover AFB:

American Thinker | November 01, 2009
O isn’t dithering on Afghanistan! It’s a Harvard Law Seminar!
By James Lewis

… Why would Obama be any better informed than the rest of the Left? He’s swallowed the Party Line for decades. He never has an original thought when it comes to liberalism; he memorized it when he was a kid, and by gum, it’s still exactly the same as it was decades ago. So he must have gulped down the whole peacenik delusion wholesale. And now a Divine Providence with a highly developed sense of irony has made him Commander in Chief.

After all, what does a Chicago pol have to really know about national security? Nothing. Chicago pols don’t even know about school security on the South Side. If they did, the schools would be much more peaceful. In New York City, it took Rudy Giuliani to clean up crime because generations of liberal mayors couldn’t figure it out. If they can’t run safe schools, what can they know about keeping peace on a global scale? When Obama and Bill Ayers got together on that Chicago inner-city program for fixing schools and buying votes, the best he came up with was a “jazz curriculum.” That’s the Dixiecrat solution for African-American education. It is disrespectful to parents and children of any race. …

George W. Bush accepted six years of foaming rage from the yapping Left with good grace. I think he could shrug it off because he understood what was important and what was merely self-serving. The Bush family has a record of solid values. Dad still jumps out of airplanes at 85. George W. Bush used to visit privately with wounded soldiers and their families, and go to see the dead coming home. Real tears are private. Bill Clinton had Hollywood photo ops in Normandy. …

On the latest from the “Religion of Peace”:

November 02, 2009 | World Net Daily
‘Everyone hates Jews,’ declares Islamic cleric
By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Trees, animals and non-Jewish athletes despise Jews, declared an Egyptian cleric on his country’s television network.

“People hate (Jews). They don’t like them. We are not talking only about people. [The same goes] even for trees and animals,” stated Egyptian cleric Amin Al-Ansari on a program two weeks ago that aired on Egypt’s Al-Rahma satellite network. …

“The proof is that the Prophet Muhammad said that when Judgment Day draws near, the final war between the Muslims and the Jews will take place. The Prophet said that the Muslims would kill the Jews. ‘Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,’“ declared Al-Ansari.

He added, citing from a hadith, a collection of the sayings of Muhammad: “The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be patient. All the trees and all the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the Gharqad tree.’ Only one kind of tree will not call [the Muslims]. It is the Gharqad tree.”

On man-made global warming climate change:

November 3, 2009 | U.K. Telegraph
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

On liberal media bias:

November 3, 2009 | NewsBusters
USA Today Defines Sycophantic Media in Front Page Homage to Obamas
By Brent Baker

… USA Today’s Mimi Hall and Maria Puente gushed in a front page story on Tuesday marking a year since President Obama’s election, “With cultural ‘flair,’ Obamas updating first family’s image.” The two reporters began by describing Barack and Michelle Obama as just like any other hip couple:

He carries a smartphone on his hip, goes out for burgers and plays pickup hoops. She goes to their daughters’ soccer games, works in the garden and loves listening to her iPod. Together, they host poets, artists and musicians at their house and invite neighborhood kids to drop by.

The journalistic duo soon featured this glowing assessment: “‘The Obamas’ White House is the most open for cultural and intellectual activities since the Kennedy administration,’ says Douglas Brinkley, author and presidential historian at Rice University in Houston. ‘It’s not simply a matter of doing events of statecraft and cultural gravitas. They have a great flair for American pop culture.’”

November 02, 2009 | TimesWatch
‘The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.’
By Clay Waters

Though he’s predicting Democrats will prevail in the end, former theatre critic turned over-dramatic liberal columnist Frank Rich sounded even more skittish than usual in his pre-election column in the Sunday Week in Review, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”

Barack Obama’s most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army. This week’s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war. No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond.

Have a blessed day!

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Larry David [UPDATED 10/30]

Yesterday, true to fascist form, President Golden Calf signed into law a shameful speech-suppressing “Hate Crime” Bill. With the stroke of a pen, government apparatchiks elected and unelected can now decide according to their leftist politically-correct will that my life (a white heterosexual male) and the lives of my wife and two small children (also white) are not equal in the eyes of the law to that lives of, say, an ethnic minority or homosexual. It is a divisive identity-politics-obsessed leftist’s dream come true. Which is why Obama, his Democrat flunkies, and media sycophants, are all excited about it.

(But remember, it was Bush and company that was shredding the Constitution.)

What’s more, this civil-liberty-violating piece of legislation will no doubt allow government apparatchiks elected and unelected to decide according to their leftist politically-correct well whether what you say is punishable as a crime. Remember the Thought Police in Orwell’s 1984? Congratulations. In 2009 they came officially into being.

Of course, not all offensive speech or violence is going to fall under this bill, because, as I said, the list of real or perceived victims is short and finite. If you’re white, male, heterosexual, and/or Christian, forget being protected. By virtue of your mere existence, you are automatically a suspect, and not a victim.

Consider: The very day before the signing, HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” created by and starring Jewish uber-liberal Larry David, had a shameful and offensive scene. An entertainment website A.V. Club reviews the episode in question:

… there was the Jesus pee tear miracle, aka Larry David’s own personal Piss Christ. Is it believable that Larry pees like an out-of-control firehose on full blast because of some medicine he’s taking? Sure. Is it then believable that his errant urine would splash onto a picture of Jesus’ face that’s near the toilet in Maureen’s house? Sure, why not? Is it at all believable that Larry would see the pee tear of his own design on Jesus’ face and not wipe it off? Uh, no. No one would leave their host’s bathroom literally dripping with their own urine, if they could at all help it. But if Larry didn’t run out of Maureen’s house like spooked, neurotic deer, then Maureen and her mom never would have thought they’d witnessed a miracle—which was an important card in the unstable, unwieldy house of cards that lead up to Maureen’s rooftop lovehandle rescue. Still, Larry should have wiped it off. Anyone would have wiped it off.

But in the process of analyzing the “believability” of the episode, the commentator makes no judgment statement about the utter offensiveness of this. 

Can you imagine what the Anti-Defamation League (with whom I am normally in agreement, just for clarification) would do if a Christian comedian jokingly got pee on the Torah?

What if a comedian pissed (even accidentally) on a picture of Mohammed? Ask that Danish newspaper what the outcry would be.

You might be wondering why I, a Jew, am getting so worked up about the desecration of a picture of Jesus. It’s a matter of principle and common decency, that’s why. It’s also because if we expect the Christian community to rally behind us if a Jewish sacred item is desecrated, we should be expected to do the same. If we Kol Yisrael arevim zeh ba-zeh: We are all responsible for one another.

Over at Big Hollywood:

Larry David’s ‘Piss Christ’

An email received today:

“First let me state that I’ve been a fan of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” for many years and, even though Larry David is a liberal, I generally enjoy the writing and Larry’s antics. However, this time what I saw made me feel a little sick, extremely disappointed and a bit angry as well. I will never watch the show again as I have lost all respect and feelings of good will for Mr. David.

“Did you happen to see the episode to which I refer? Assuming you did not catch the episode, briefly stated: Larry pisses on the face of a painting of Jesus Christ, followed by mocking of Christians who believe the piss drop on the face of Jesus is a tear, thus they’ve witnessed a miracle. I wonder how many other viewers, Christian and non Christian, are similarly shocked and disgusted? Of course, the hypocrisy is that Mr. David would never exhibit such gross contempt for any other religion, especially Islam.

“Can you imagine the sh*t storm that would follow if David pissed on a painting of the prophet Muhammad? Of course, HBO, the complicit scum that they are, would not have allowed that to air.”

You see how the hypocritical, PC game is played?

Rush Limbaugh was fired years ago from ESPN for making a non-racist comment that was nevertheless deemed racist. Yet Larry David will not apologize, nor will he be expected to.

Just the other day ESPN commentator David Griese was made to apologize and was then suspended for joking that a Mexican NASCAR driver was out somewhere eating a taco. Yet Larry David will not apologize nor will he be expected to.

Currently, the father of a Connecticut 9/11 is battling his town. On a public memorial of his son they are refusing to inscribe the words “Murdered by Muslim Terrorists” for fear it could be offensive to Muslims. But I’m sure the suits at HBO had no problem allowing Larry David to splatter urine on a picture of Jesus on their T.V. channel, even though it could be offensive to Christians. (Indeed it is to many.)

I am informed Jerry Seinfeld appeared in this episode. Even though he had nothing to do with the urination scene, shame on him for being part of such an episode. And shame on that hateful and hypocritical Larry David. You make the rest of us Jews look bad.

UPDATE 10/30: Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted the scene in question from YouTube.

And the Anchoress ponders:

Forget Jewish, forget Muslim. If, let’s say, Kelsey Grammer had done precisely the same thing on his show, but using an image of, oh, let’s just say ferinstance, Barack Obama, do you think he’d still have a career?

Finally, Jamie Glazov at Front Page Mag’s Newsreal blog page opines:

Are producers of this show, or Larry David, or anyone else connected to it fearing for their lives right now? Are there Christian groups calling for the death of anyone in connection to this episode?

In comparison, let us say, to the Muhammad cartoons riots and death threats, what does this say about Islam and Christianity? Which faith is a Religion of Peace and which one is not?

Would the producers of this show have just as easily allowed a scene in which Larry David urinates on a Koran? He couldn’t urinate on a picture of Muhammad because we all know that making a representation of Muhammad gets you an immediate death sentence. So we have to settle for the Holy Book. But how much does anyone want to bet that this would never be allowed?

Question: Why in our culture is urinating on Jesus easily permitted but urinating on the Koran is simply unthinkable? What does this signify?

And why is it that the people who right now are rolling their eyes and saying that Christians should get a life because this is freedom of expression, the same ones who would be up in arms if Larry David had done the same thing to the Koran? They are the ones who blamed the artists of the Muhammad cartoons for provoking and upsetting Muslims. They are the ones who argue that, when it comes to the sensibilities of Muslims, free speech has limits. If Curb Your Enthusiasm had an episode in which Larry David urinated on a Koran, they would be on the front lines saying that this is Islamophobia and that we must be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims, etc. It would be deemed as hate speech. There would be lawsuits and the show would be cancelled and David’s career would be over.

HBO has come to the defense of the episode, saying that it is all about parody. Everyone needs to lighten up. So, if Larry David urinated on the Koran, would HBO tell everyone they need to lighten up because it is parody? What does it say that we know for a fact that the latter would simply never happen?

What meaning and lesson do we draw from this?

As discussed above, the lesson is simple: Some religious, racial, ethnic, and political groups can be ridiculed and offended with impunity; others cannot. The arbitrary rules are drawn up by a politically correct, purely result-oriented ilk who have apparently succeeded in imposing their twisted worldview onto the rest of us.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/25/09)

A lot going on today. First, Richard Baehr reviews Norman Podhoretz’s new book Why Are Jews Liberals? in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Chosen People, Choosing Left
In the presidential election, Barack Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote.

It will be dangerous to the Jewish future, Mr. Podhoretz says, for Jews to continue down the path of reflexively supporting not just Democrats but also the party’s liberal wing. Unlike every other ethnic or religious group, he notes, Jews do not become more conservative as their income and wealth rise. The reason for such steady liberalism, it is often claimed, is that Jews care about those who are marginalized in America, as Jews themselves were once marginalized both here and in other countries.

But Mr. Podhoretz maintains that Jews are voting against their own interests. Jews advanced in America in the mid-20th century when the meritocracy took hold, individual effort and achievement were rewarded, and group quotas, which limited Jewish educational opportunity and economic advancement, were eliminated. How odd, then, to see Jews aligned with the party that embraces identity politics, affirmative action and quota-driven policies. Democrats also favor higher taxes and more government regulation, neither of which tends to produce the sort of economic expansion that benefits everyone, including the marginalized.

Also recommended on this topic: Book review by David Forsmark at Front Page Mag.

Next, Brian O’Connell at American Spectator has a nice article about the Obama administration’s curious non-interest in winning the war in Afghanistan. After all, O’Connell reminds us, Afghanistan was the war all the Democrats screamed we should have been focusing more on, but that evil Bush distracted us by invading Iraq …

So Much for the Good War
9.25.09

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are caught in a political quagmire with respect to the war in Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported on Monday that General Stanley McChrystal has asked Secretary Gates for additional forces to combat the Taliban-led insurgency. Yet, the Democrats in Congress are publicly raising doubts and even urging for a lighter footprint in a conflict that the president has called—in implicit contrast with Iraq—a “war of necessity.”

Next, Joel Mowbray at Big Government has the latest score between ACORN exposer James O’Keefe vs. a bitter, vindictive Obama-protecting mainstream media:

James O’Keefe 3, Big Media 0

As soon as James O’Keefe’s explosive video footage was unveiled two weeks ago — shaking ACORN to its core — various leftists and their allies in the mainstream media have fixated on a singular mission: smearing the messenger. O’Keefe was not just targeted by MSM backbenchers, but the Big Three: New York Times, Washington Post, and the Associated Press. The results weren’t even close. It was a lopsided victory for O’Keefe, as all three titans of media issued corrections on damning allegations.

Finally, Jamie Glazov at Front Page Mag’s “Newsreal” blog comments on an exchange between Larry King and his guest, libertarian Larry Elder. Apparently the white Jewish liberal King was offended that black libertarian Elder was not up in arms about alleged “racism” against Barack Obama.

Larry King’s Owed Apology to Larry Elder 
2009 SEPTEMBER 25

King asks Elder, with an accusatory tone, why he’s not “angry” about racism, the premise being, of course, that King is a better human being because he is angry and Elder is not a good human being because he supposedly isn’t angry.

Elder answers: 

“Larry, do you want me to be angry? My father does not know who his father was. He grew up in the south. He got kicked out of the house by his mom. He grew up in Jim Crow south. This is now 2009. We have a black president. We’ve had back-to-back black secretaries of state. I’m grateful that I live in America. And right now, it’s about hard work, accountability and not blaming other people. I’m not going to go there where I don’t see racism. You’re not going to make me.” 

There’s something grotesque about Larry King taking the moral high ground with an African-American and telling him that he needs to start getting angry about racism, as if Elder himself doesn’t have his own personal experience with racism and hasn’t dealt with its hurt in his own soul in his own personal way. The key issue Elder is discussing, among other things, is what humans must do to better themselves (i.e. take personal responsibility) and to better the society in which they live under potentially adverse circumstances.

Have a blessed day!

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/21/09)

Matthew Vadum at American Spectator continues his yeoman’s work in covering the ACORN scandal:

ACORN’S Useful Idiots
9.21.09

… ACORN does not have “a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished.”

This is a common misconception on the left where the group is viewed as having roughly the same moral rectitude as the late Mother Teresa. It is thought of as unassailable because it is believed to be doing good. The fact that it is so regularly attacked by conservatives and Republicans causes the left to cheer even louder for ACORN.

But the evidence shows that ACORN does not mean well, and that any good the group may happen to do for people is purely incidental.

Next, former Asst. Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey has this American Thinker piece on the current administration’s un-American engagement in dissent suppression:

September 21, 2009
Suppressing Dissent is Un-American

The major outlets for both information and dissent today are talk radio and the internet. Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission’s new “Diversity Czar” is a disciple of “Rules for Radicals” Saul Alinski and an admirer of Hugo Chavez. Lloyd describes freedom of speech and the press as a “distraction”. He proposes whipping private radio companies into line by threats to their license renewal or by taxing them so heavily that they would be driven out of existence.

If that doesn’t worry you, consider Senate Bill 773 which would permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector non-governmental computer networks during a so-called cyber security emergency, however that may be defined.

Dissent is not un-American, but trying to intimidate and, squelch free speech is. As the editor of the Morning Journal wrote in an August 9 column, “You had better keep a close eye on this White House. Because the Obama White House apparently has its eyes and ears out on the streets watching, listening and ready to ‘flag’ anyone who doesn’t sing their tune.”

Next, Evan Coyne Maloney at Big Government analyzes the rules defining Obama’s “post-racial” America:

ACORN, Kanye West and the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism

To understand the mindset of the politically correct, there are a few rules of racial relations that you need to know. These rules establish the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism:

1. If a person is a member of a group guilty of past racial oppression, that person has no moral standing in relation to anyone in any group that’s ever been a victim of that oppression.
2. A member of an oppressor group is always assumed to be guilty in relation to a member of a victim group.
3. An oppressor can only avoid presumed guilt by making a display of his or her sympathy for the oppressed.
4. Members of victim groups can lose their moral standing by expressing a preference for individual rights as opposed to group rights.
5. Advocating on behalf of a victim makes one almost as unassailable as being that victim.
6. Coming to the defense of an oppressor is even more repugnant than being that oppressor.

This thinking is so common these days that many prominent liberals–from New York Times columniststo former presidents–believe that criticism of President Obama can only be motivated by racial bigotry.

Finally, in a half-joking, half-serious piece, Brian Darling at Human Events thanks President Obama:

Thank You, President Obama
09/21/2009

I love President Barack Obama. No kidding. I love the guy. Barack Obama is the best community organizer of conservatives since Ronald Reagan.

Not even conservative icon Sarah Palin, had she been elected Vice President, could have put together hundreds of town hall meetings with conservatives turning out and decrying the socialist aspects of the liberal health care bills.

Have a blessed day.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/16/09)

It’s one week after S.C. Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” during President Hope&Change’s health (s)care pitch. David Limbaugh at NewsMax doesn’t buy the Dems’ outrage for a second and calls them on their own well-documented hypocrisy:

Memo to Dems: Spare Us the Phony ‘Lie’ Outrage
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

While Democratic leaders are wagging their fingers at the Republican Party’s alleged descent into incivility over Wilson’s unplanned, indignant outburst, they have a very short memory about their own party-wide monopoly on incivility, as they savaged Bush throughout his presidency. I researched and wrote a 400-plus-page book documenting the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of these hypocritical scolds in 2006, in case you need a refresher course.

Unlike Wilson, these offending Democrats have never apologized for their outrages. Did Rep. John Murtha apologize for prejudging and slandering our battlefield Marines who were later vindicated? Did Sen. Harry Reid ever apologize for calling Bush a liar? Al Gore? John Kerry? Has suspected tax evader Rep. Charles Rangel apologized for his conduct while devising new ways to confiscate even higher taxes from honest, hardworking Americans who actually pay their taxes?

Did Sen. Dick Durbin retract the substance of his remarks in comparing Gitmo to the gulag? Did House leader Nancy Pelosi repent for defaming the CIA?

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Speaking of government-run health (s)care, Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation and Unfit for Command) has a scoop at WND about Congress’ plan to push an immigration bill that will unequivocally make illegals eligible for government-run health care:

‘Obama to make illegals eligible for health care’ 
Upcoming immigration bill seen as ‘backdoor’ to bring millions into plan

September 15, 2009

The Obama administration intends to “backdoor” illegal immigrants into its proposed health-care plan by passing an immigration reform bill that would give legal status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., charged Radio America talk-radio host Rodger Hedgecock today in Washington, D.C.

Calling comprehensive immigration reform the Obama administration’s “second act,” Hedgecock said illegal immigrants initially would be excluded from the healthcare plan but would have access to it once comprehensive immigration reform is passed by Congress.

On a still related note, Armstrong Williams at the Washington Times discusses the current race-baiting, which he regards as a sign of pure desparation on the part of the Dems:

The ‘race-chasers’ strike again
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

It’s the oldest play in the book: Ignore the message; attack the messenger. Drop an “-ism” and watch his or her opponents scatter. What next? Is every criticism of the president now subject to a racial filter? Are we to ask every opponent of the president, “Is there hatred in your heart when you say that?”

If so, then maybe the health care debate is increasingly about race—just in a way that no one is talking about. If the rousing fact of an American black president gives Democrats license to deliberately confuse every contested issue by merely labeling and dismissing their critics as racists, then the national debate will be short-circuited—because of racism. Who could have thought that racial issues would become worse—not better—with Barack Hussein Obama as our president?

Finally, at Townhall Michael Medved outlines the many ways left and right differ and concludes that’s it all boils down to attitude toward America:

The Real Political Divide: Attitudes Toward America
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

[L]iberals and conservatives differ dramatically and profoundly. This is not to say that all liberals hate America, or that all conservatives glorify their country unreservedly. But in questions of emphasis the contrast couldnt be more clear: the left stresses Americas failures, shortcomings, hypocrisies, and embarrassments while the right trumpets the nations achievements, blessings, and distinctive advantages. Nothing enrages liberals more than the conservative tendency for jingoistic flag-waving and super-patriotism; nothing bothers conservatives more than the liberal habit of blaming America first and concentrating on historic guilt and present problems.

Have a blessed day!

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/8/09)

First, this piece by Brian T. Schwartz at Pajamas Media is sure to rustle some liberal feathers:

Health Care Is Not a Privilege … Nor Is It a Right
September 8, 2009

… Health care is not a right. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce. A “right” to health care violates the rights of those who produce it.

“Health care” consists of diagnoses and treatments by highly-trained medical professionals. It involves sophisticated products, instruments, and tests designed and developed at great investment, effort, and cost by scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. That is, people produce health care.

Nor is medical care a privilege. A privilege is something authority figures permit us to do at their discretion. No one considers auto repair to be a right, but it’s absurd to consider it “a privilege.” No one grants you the “privilege” of having money to repair your car. Rather, if you want to own a functioning car, you must take responsibility to finance its repair by earning wealth. The same goes for medical treatment. As Mark Twain said, “the world owes you nothing” — adults must take responsibility to finance medical treatment they want. People who choose to become parents are also responsible for paying for their children’s medical treatment.

There’s no right to health care, just as there’s no right to happiness. But the pursuit of happiness is a right. Similarly, everyone has the right to pursue medical treatment through voluntary exchange with those who produce it. We also have the right to protect ourselves against medical expenses as we see fit. Low-premium catastrophic insurance is just one option. Others include more costly comprehensive health plans, paying a retainer at a cash-only clinic, or obtaining membership in a health care co-op or health care sharing ministry. Yet when politicians seek to guarantee health care as a right, they decide what qualifies as appropriate medical treatment. Whether you get the treatment you want depends on the discretion of authorities. That is, health care becomes a privilege. […]

Second, on the theme of the president addressing the nation’s schoolchildren, Byron York at the Washington Examiner reminds us [h/t Malkin]:

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
09/08/09

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech—they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. […]

Next, the brilliant Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics expresses his thoughts on Obama umpteenth speech on government-run health (s)care, which takes place tomorrow:

What Obama Says vs. What He Does
September 8, 2009

… No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s medical care before the August recess—for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years—more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? […]

Gregory Gethard at Front Page discusses the resignation of Van Jones, the “Red” Czar:

The Fall of the Red Czar
Tuesday, September 08, 2009

No thanks to the establishment media and Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration’s “green jobs czar” Van Jones is out of a job.

Jones resigned this weekend in the wake of revelations, initially ignored by the press, that he has a long record as a political radical, a background that includes his association with the so-called “Truther” conspiracy theorists who claim that the September 11 attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government.

Now that Jones has stepped down, the media has rallied to his defense, depicting Jones as the victim of a “vicious smear campaign” by foes of his environmental politics – a charge echoed by the administration’s Democratic allies. The less palatable truth is that Jones is a racial provocateur and opportunist who tried to capitalize on the administration’s sympathy for the “green” agenda to bring his own brand of socialist and black radical politics to national prominence.

Although apparently missed by the Obama administration’s screeners, Jones’ intention to use environmentalism as a way to push his socialist agenda can clearly be seen in his remarks at the “PowerShift ‘09” youth conference in Washington. Described as an attempt to bring together young people united in support of climate change and other green policies, PowerShift ’09 quickly became a forum for Jones to push his radical views on a captive audience. […]

And finally, Jay Nordlinger at NRO is on liberal hypocrisy watch with more on imagined right-wing hate vs. actual left-wing hate:

When protest is uncool, &c.
September 8, 2009

They say that “hate” is rearing its head, and that President Obama and the Democrats are the victims of it. Let me make a couple of predictions: I predict that the chairman of the Republican National Committee will never say, “I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for. This [politics, basically] is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.” Howard Dean said that about the GOP: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. . . .” I predict that an editor of a conservative magazine will never write a piece called “The Case for Obama Hatred,” beginning, “I hate President Barack Obama.” A New Republic editor did this, about Bush. And there is increasing worry about assassination: that someone will take a shot, not just at the president, but at the first black president, which would be extra-catastrophic for the country. A few protesters have carried signs urging violence against Obama, or smacking of violence. Let me make some more predictions: I predict that a network talk-show host will not show a video of President Obama giving a speech and put the following words on the screen: “SNIPERS WANTED.” Craig Kilborn of CBS did that to George W. Bush. […]

For many more examples, see my post from last week here.

Schmuck Republican: John McCain "Convinced" Obama Respects the Constitution

I almost fell off my seat when I heard about this. The U.K. Guardian reports:

John McCain stands up for Barack Obama during town hall meeting
Obama’s former rival heckled by audience for saying the president respects the US constitution

During the meeting in the retirement community of Sun City, Arizona, Obama’s former rival defended the president after an attendee asked: “Doesn’t he [Obama] know that we still live under a constitution?”

“I’m sure that he does,” McCain said. After the crowd erupted into laughter, the Arizona senator said: “No, no. I am serious. I am sure that he does and I’m sure he respects the constitution.”

“No!” the attendees shouted. McCain responded: “I am absolutely convinced of it. I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government. That is why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties, and competition about different ideas and vision for the future of America. I’m convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.” […]

John S. McCain, you are a schmuck! You are convinced that Barack Obama respects the Constitution? Why? What convinced you of this, Mr. McCain?

Was it when Obama said—way back in 2001—that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it doesn’t allow for “redistributive wealth” and espoused an unconstitutionally activist judiciary to correct those flaws:

[T]he Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

Was it when he took over GM and wielded unconstitutional power over areas of the American private sector he sought to punish?

Maybe it was when the president appointed his 37th unelected, unaccountable, untouchable “czar” to encroach upon the last nook and cranny of Americans’ personal freedom. That would be the free-speech-hating FCC “Diversity” Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press … This freedom is all too often an exaggeration … At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

Or was it when the president was expressing his intent to regulate the income of Americans whom he considers enemies of his State—corporate CEO’s, Wall Street types, physicians, insurance companies (but not trial lawyers, Hollywood actors, or union bosses).

Barack Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution, John McCain, and you—unlike your much more courageous running-mate Sarah Palin—didn’t have the balls to say it. What a disgrace. 

It was hard enough pulling the lever for this RINO in 2008 only because it meant helping to prevent an Obama presidency. But if John McCain thinks he’ll be able to throw his hat in the presidential ring ever again, he’s going to have another think coming.

P.S. Free Republic reader “Nervous Tick” justifiably wonders: 

What would McCain know about respecting the constitution?
EXHIBIT A: the McCain/Feingold.

Weekly Roar: Why Liberal TV and Talk Shows and Are Doomed to Fail

Enjoy the latest from guest blogger Loud Lion:

So, you all probably expect me to talk about Teddy Kennedy and my dislike for the man, and Mary Jo … well, I won’t. I will agree with Mark “The Great One” Levin on this, and not use his death as a platform to bash the man. But will rail against the media making the man out to be a hero, which, if any of you have read my infrequent posts, I feel he is most certainly not.

I am going to talk about the upcoming FCC Diversity Czar (#142 on your Czar Score Card, people) desire to have Private Media fund Public Media dollar for dollar and his quest for a “Fairness Doctrine.”

OK, let’s get right to it. I listen to Mark Levin every day. I do not get to listen to him live since I have parental duties and spousal duties too, so I download his free podcast the next morning as I get dressed and listen to him on my IPHONE during my commute. (Mr. Levin, if you or any of your staff or friends see this, thank you for being … well, The Great One.) Mr. Levin mentioned Ron Reagan, Jr. and I believe Barry Goldwater’s daughter as children of conservatives who have liberal media shows … with no ratings. Well, that got me to thinking about liberal media along the lines of conservative media, and why one is a ratings success and the other is not. (If you are reading this, well, you might know the answer, or you may want to read to the end to see why I say it is.)

Liberals think they know it all. Argue with a liberal, and well, facts go out the window. [Indeed, it was Ronald Reagan who said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” -ETR] Say that the uninsured in the United States is not 47 million and show facts and figures to support that. Well, you will get emotional rebukes to the likes of “Why you are against everyone having health care?” Emotion, as we have seen, is the number one tool in the liberal debater’s arsenal. You cannot win against emotion; if you could, more marriages would succeed. This emotion tactic is not just used against conservatives; it is used against liberals who do not spout the party line of the moment. President Obama floats the idea that maybe he would compromise on health care reform with co-op medical plans which would expand coverage but not be under government control. Well, that idea was floated on Sunday, and by Monday afternoon the President was disavowing that the idea came from him, even though we know that the Secretary of Health and Human Services does not do anything without the White House’s tacit blessings.

Why was this? Why did the balloon crash like a Led Zeppelin (Black Dog anyone?)? Because the radical left did not like the idea that health care be accessible to everyone, and by everyone they mean you, your parents (unless they are over 65), your grandparents (unless they are not worthy of being saved), the illegal immigrant, the illegal immigrant’s wife, child, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, sister, brother and possibly given enough time, the family dog too. Yep, your tax dollars were not being spread out enough for the radical left. But, I am getting off my main point, so let’s take a hard left and get back. The radical left did not agree with the only slightly radical left. Familiar?

How does this apply to liberal media you ask, well, here it is. Not many people, liberal or not, can agree with Rachel Maddow. Not may people can agree with Keith Olbermann or with Chris Matthews. Oh, liberals may agree with a point or two, but for the most part, do not agree with everything [You haven’t met some of my friends; they think the sun rises and sets around this triumvirate of liberal lunacy! -ETR]. And a liberal who is driven by emotion will tune you out if they do not agree with you. Now, let’s look at the conservative. We are not looking to remold anyone in our image. We do not believe that it is our way or no way. We are the thinkers of Live and Let Live. Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We are not the thinkers of the Welfare State that believes that impoverished people need to be reeducated to become productive society members. We are not the thinkers of allowing people who blow themselves up in pizza shops a voice. I do not care why you think it is right to target schoolchildren. We are the thinkers of choice. You make a choice to adhere to society, or not. We do not change society (as the left does) to have you fight into it. Right or wrong, that is our thinking. So, if I disagree with you, it will be on a philosophical plane, a rational plane, not emotional.

So, next time you hear a liberal arguing, listen to the argument. See if I am not right about this. See how long it takes for the liberal to pull out the emotion card (isn’t that what they did to Sarah Palin, or Nancy Pelosi does with her “Nazi” statement).

Right or wrong, agree or not, I want to hear what you have to say. Even if it is to go to hell.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (8/19/09): ObamaCare Edition

It's all health (s)care all the time today. First, Jonah Goldberg at Town Hall gives his take on the Obama administration's insistence on silencing debate and demonizing his opponents:

Why ‘ObamaCare’ is Failing
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Imagine if George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the “time for talking is over.” Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails in the pursuit of “fishy” dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott derided critics as “evil-mongers” the way Harry Reid recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay had called critics “un-American” the way Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod. […]

Suspicion of bad motives is only reinforced by Obama’s determination to steamroll to victory. Indeed, Democratic dudgeon that the town hall protesters don’t want civil debate is hysterical, given that Obama wanted this over before the August recess. No wonder the president who thought the time for talk was over long ago now doesn’t like the talk he’s getting.

Some might say the real story is to be found in the eroding support from independent voters and Blue Dog Democratic congressmen. Or in the panic among seniors that Obama will raid Medicare. Or in his inability to get progressive Democrats to agree to a bipartisan approach. Or maybe the real story is Obama’s manifest inability to sell a program he’s invested his presidency in.

But no. Obama wants the debate to be about angry white men. And, as lame as that is, that’s what’s happening. It won’t make ObamaCare a reality, but it will shift the blame from where it rightly belongs.

Next, at Jewish World Review, Nat Hentoff reaches a frightening conclusion about the Obama White House:

I am finally scared of a White House administration
August 19, 2009

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law. […]

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?

Third, at Front Page Mag, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann sum up one of the chapters from their remarkable new book which I’ve been reading:

It's All a Death Panel
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

“Reform” would cut care to the elderly in several ways:

* Slash hundreds of billions from Medicare spending, largely by lowering reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals for patient care.

If a hospital gets less money for each MRI, it will do fewer of them. If a surgeon gets paid less for a heart bypass on a Medicare patient, he’ll perform them more rarely. These facts of the marketplace are not only inevitable consequences of Obama’s cuts but are also its intended consequence. Without them, his savings will prove illusory.

* Expanding the patient load by extending full coverage to 50 million Americans (including such “Americans” as illegal immigrants) without boosting the supply of care will force rationing decisions on harried and overworked doctors and hospitals.

People with insurance use a lot more health-care resources—so today’s facilities and personnel will have to cope with the increased workload. Busy surgeons will have to decide who would benefit most from their treatment—de facto rationing. The elderly will, inevitably, be the losers.

* The Federal Health Board, established by this legislation, will be charged with collecting data on various forms of treatment for different conditions to assess which are the most effective and efficient. While the bills don’t force providers to obey the board’s “guidance,” its recommendations will still wind up setting the standards and protocols for care systemwide.

We’ve already seen Medicare and Medicaid lead a similar race to the bottom with their formularies and other regulations. With Washington dictating what every policy must cover and regulating all rates, insurers and providers will all have to follow the FHB’s advice on limiting care to the elderly—a de facto rationing system.

* In assessing whether to allow certain treatments to a given patient, medical professionals will be encouraged to apply the Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years system. Under QARY, decision-makers seek to “amortize” the cost of treatment over the remaining “quality years of life” likely for that patient.

Imagine a hip replacement costing $100,000 and the 75-year-old who needs it, a diabetic with a heart condition deemed to have just three “quality” years left. That works out to $33,333 a year -- too steep! Surgery disallowed! (Unless of course, the patient has political connections … )

Next, from Michael Goodwin at the NY Daily News talks buyer’s remorse:

Health care debate confirms this is not the Barack Obama we elected
Wednesday, August 19th 2009

… Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite an unhappy nation?

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that’s where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head.

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side.

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let’s find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor’s irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better.

The public’s not buying it. And as a measure of the nation’s mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch. […]

Last, but not least, Caroline Baum at Bloomberg writes about the Freudian slip of the century:

Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office: Caroline Baum

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) — “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”—Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care—the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases —last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn’t cashed in on TARP!)

That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?

What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage? […]

Good questions. Which all the supposedly stupid people (i.e., the ObamaCare opponents) are wondering and all the supposedly enlightened people (i.e., the supporters) are avoiding.

When Obama made that Post Office comment, Rahm must have left a crater slapping his forehead. Obama had just spilled the beans that everything he said about the way government works and the way ObamaCare will work is a bold-faced lie.

Liberal Media Bias: At MSNBC Even Black Gun-Carriers Are Racist!

If there is greater proof that entering the liberal bubble requires checking your brain at the door, I have yet to find it.

The Obama-worshiping mainstream media have been pushing the storyline that there is a rising trend of gun-toting white supremicists who hate having a black man in the White House. This is virtually the only motivation lib media anchors and commentators give for the public response to Barack Obama crumpling up the Constitution, lighting it on fire, and tossing it out Oval Office window like a Molotov cocktail.

Most recently, we’ve heard about an attendee at a Town Hall in Arizona packing heat. This sent several MSNBC anchors and their guests into a tizzy. Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters reports:

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns.” …

Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: “...there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president....we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.” Ratigan agreed: “...then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks.”

Except one teensy weensy problem blows this whole analysis out of the water: The man with the gun was black. The Obamedia is so stuck in their liberal template they must willfully ignore this fact. How do I know it’s willful? As Drennen continues:

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.

Not being content with portraying all health care reform protesters as racist, Toure went on to predict an attempt on Obama’s life: “I’m not going to be surprised if we see somebody get a chance and take a chance and really try to hurt him or really....we’re going to see somebody, you know, some sort of Squeaky From, some sort of Mark [John] Hinckley figure, because there’s so much anger in the country about him, about what’s going on with government.” Ratigan replied: “Angry at government and racism, you put those two together.”

Does this look like a racist white supremicist to you?

At the end of Tuesday’s exchange, Brewer did observe: “Just to put a finer point on this, just because people are worried about the government getting too big and taking power where it should not, does not necessarily correlate to people being racist.” 

Then why did you bring it up, a*hole? Chances are viewers—what few you have—wouldn’t have correlated ObamaCare opposition with racism if you people hadn’t brought it up to begin with!

Ratigan agreed but argued: “I would say people frustrated with the government raises the overall temperature....you would install a black president at a time when the temperature is higher and you just have a more volatile combination, where people have to behave in a more conscious manner or we’re going to have problems.”

As Larry Elder “The Sage from South Central” would say right about now: Please pass the Tylenol.

[h/t What Bubba Knows]

Another "Angry Right-Wing Obama-Hater" Story Gone Dreadfully Wrong

What a bad couple weeks it’s been for President Hope&Change, the Democrat leadership, and the mainstream media which have blindly followed them off their self-created cliff.

Let’s take a tally here:

• The anti-ObamaCare protesters have been accused by the Democrat leadership and compliant media to be “Astroturf,” i.e., organized corporate shills rather than grassroots citizens. Yet it turns out that just the opposite has been true: ObamaCare supporters have been exposed as having been organized, transported by bus, and snuck in through back doors into crowded Town Halls by ACORN, unions, and other groups politically and financially benefitting from Obama’s policies.

• The anti-ObamaCare protesters have been accused by the Democrat leadership as violent, unhinged, fear-mongering racists. The ever-dutiful Obamedia projected this smear, including stories of how Obama’s physical safety is more threatened than ever and declaring, “The militias are coming! The militias are coming!” Yet, the only instances of physical violence so far has been by ObamaCare supporters against opponents. Victims have included a protestor in Tampa, a black conservative in a wheelchair in St. Louis beaten up by SIEU members, a man at the same St. Louis meeting being slapped by a woman.

• The little girl at the New Hampshire Town Hall who was allegedly chosen at random to ask Obama a question about all the “mean signs” outside turns out to be a plant (Kudos to the Boston Globe). She is the daughter of a Democrat Party volunteer and donor who even attended one of the Obamas’ inaugural balls.

• A poster of Obama with the Hitler moustache that showed up at the John Dingell Town Hall was fodder for the Democrat political elite and the mainstream media as they decried the dangerous direction “extremist” right-wingers were taking the health care debate. Voilà, turns out the poster was being carried by a Democrat union plant who was caught on video handing out pro-Dingell literature that the same event.

• The Community-Organizer-in-Chief—demonstrating he doesn’t like it when the community organizes against him—sets up a snitch line at the White House’s website, which he is forced to take down once his staff is caught on TV with their feet in their mouths when asked simple questions like “The emails are being deleted, right?” and “Why were so many people receiving unsoliticited email from the White House about making donations and joining the pro-ObamaCare bandwagon?”

• And now, we find out yesterday evening that the creator of the infamous Obama Joker poster that first showed up in Los Angeles is not a racist conservative, but a 20-year-old Chicagoan of Palestinian descent and a Democrat (whose presidential candidate of choice was Dennis Kucinich) [h/t NewsBusters].

I just need to ask a question:

How much more freaking  P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C  can you Democrats in Washington and mainstream media be!?

Liberal Hypocrisy: When Liberals/Democrats Loved Angry Shouting Mobs [UPDATED]

Ah, the good old days. When "dissent" was patriotic and calling your president Hitler was cool. And when the Left in politics and the media gave you a pass and even encouraged it.

Last week, after San Fran Nan complained of seeing swastikas at Town Hall meetings, I wrote this post showing the dozens of swastikas brandished in her own district over the eight years of the Bush administration.

Another thing Madam Speaker doesn't care for (or any other ObamaCare-supporting politician being confronted by her constituents this month) is angry mobs. At least, angry mobs who are protesting something she supports. Uncovered by Michelle Malkin is this 2006 video clip where an angry unhinged mob of anti-Iraq War protestors are encouraged by Madam Pelosi to continue their ... um, anger. At approximately the 3:30 point, as the crowd starts chanting "No More War!" Pelosi tells the moderator admonishing them that "it's OK" and that she "appreciates it":

The whole liberal trope about "angry mobs" being counterproductive and detrimental to the protestors' mission is a load of bull to begin with. As someone I read on Facebook said: Sometimes passion is misinterperted as rudeness especially when that passion is not something you share.

But it doesn't stop there. Radio host (and high school friend) Scott Allen Miller found this 2006 video clip of of anti-war protesters getting glowing coverage by CNN's Susan Roesgen (yes, that Susan Roesgen):

Does the hypocrisy of the Left have no bounds?

Don't answer that.

UPDATE: Breitbart has a more thorough version of the Nancy Pelosi clip. In this one we hear Madam Speaker say she "understands the protesters' anger" and that she's a "fan of disruptors."

Stop the Presses: I've Found Nancy Pelosi's Swastika Pictures! [UPDATED 8/15]

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made news when she accused protesters against President Obama’s government-run health (s)care of brandishing swastikas.

But evidence of these swastika-wielding protesters have been hard to find. In fact, Kevin Aylward at the Wizbang blog declares that “Pelosi’s Swastika Claim Is a Crock,” supported by the following research of the Left’s main blogs:

[Note: Links are to search results that will change over time. Anything dated after 8/5/09 is an after the fact post or comment that would, in effect, be Astroturfing for Pelosi's statement.]

Daily Kos (Stories and Diaries) - 2 results, 1 related. The related report (about defending liberal turf on health care) contains no report of health care protest attendees wearing swastikas. Verdict: No corroboration

Think Progress - 1 result dated back to 2008, unrelated. Verdict: No corroboration

Firedoglake - 3 results, none related. Verdict: No corroboration

Google Blog Search - None related, one post calling B.S., and there was this from a recent Austin, Minnesota immigration reform debate, where an actual member of the Socialist Party is said to have worn a t-shirt with a swastika. Verdict: No corroboration

But finally, the comment sewer at Daily Kos did reap a reward...

Daily Kos Comment Search - Mostly non-related, but there is one comment which appears to be the source of Pelosi's contention. Here we find the one and only reference to someone (a kid) supposedly wearing a swastika to an event in Austin two weeks ago. Verdict: Possible source […]

Today, over a day later, Sam Stein at The Huffington Post gets sent a thumbnail showing a female with a sign containing a swastika.

His interpretation of the sign is a little odd, it seems pretty clear that the crude message of the sign means, "no nazism" or "no socialism," and the "? Obama" subheading wonders whether Obama supports socialism or nazism. Honestly it's a pretty weak poster.

Indeed, this is the only picture with a swastika that has allegedly appeared at a government-run health (s)care protest. This is the smoking gun? And even this picture might not be legitimate. Read on:

I did a little more digging and found over 130 high resolution photos of the event in this gallery. I looked through all 133 pictures with a fine tooth comb for the lady with the sign that someone sent to Sam Stein. I found the right where she should be...

Guess who is missing, from these and every one of the other 133 pictures?

The lady with the swastika sign...

Are we noticing a pattern?

So, the swastika claims of Nancy Pelosi (and anyone else so in the tank for Obama and his government-run health (s)care plan) is questionable at best and pure unadulterated bullsh*t at worst.

But not to fear, Nancy! I think I’ve found your swastika pictures!

 

Oh wait, these aren’t ObamaCare protesters. They’re left-wingers protesting against George W. Bush on October 26, 2002 and February 16, 2003 in San Francisco. (Hey, isn’t that Pelosi’s very own district? Why, yes it is. What a coinkidink.)

The October one, incidentally, was attended by Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland/Berkeley. I wonder if this is this what San Fran Nan and Harry “The War Is Lost” Reid would classify as “grassroots” or “Astroturf.” Hmmm …

Maybe it’s these photos that Nancy’s referring to:

 

Oh wait, these aren’t ObamaCare protesters. They’re left-wingers protesting against the war in Iraq on September 24, 2005 in San Francisco. (Hey, isn’t that Pelosi’s very own district? Why, yes it is. What a coinkidink.)

Maybe it’s these photos that Nancy’s referring to:

 

Oh wait, these aren’t ObamaCare protesters either. They’re left-wingers protesting the “Gaza War” (Wha???) just seven months ago on January 10, 2009 in San Francisco. (Hey, isn’t that Pelosi’s very own district? Why, yes it is. What a coinkidink.)

So let me see if I have this right: One photo with one swastika shows up at one ObamaCare protest, and Pelosi denounces it on national TV. But several photos of several swastikas show up at several anti-Bush, anti-Iraq-War, and anti-Israel protests in her own district, and San Fran Nan couldn’t care less?

You got it.

Incidentally, how did I come to find these swastika signs? They were at websites linked to at this Washington Times article by Kerry Picket. And how did I find this Times article? It was linked to at the L.A. Times politics blog where one Brendan Bigelow defended Ms. Pelosi, yet chastised Rush Limbaugh, who on Wednesday’s show noted an eerie resemblance between the Nazi symbol with the ObamaCare logo.

Thanks, Mr. Bigelow.

Seriously, one would be hard-pressed in modern times to find a more detestable, deceitful, and hypocritical character in high office than Nancy D’Alesandro Pelosi.

But don’t worry, Ms. Pelosi. Your defenders in the press no doubt got your back.

P.S. I posted a comment to the L.A. Times blog post which, as of this writing, has not been published. Other comments written after me, however, have been. ‘M just sayin’.

UPDATE 8/15: The ZombieTime blog, from which some of the above pictures are taken, has a bigger montage of Bush = Hitler posters from around the country.