Vocal Minority

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

[Part 1here]

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’ve ignored it.

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

Yeah. Just … yeah.

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.

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

On President Hope&Change:

November 11, 2009 | American Spectator
The Man Who Despises America
By Mark Hyman

When people who voted for Obama in 2008—including registered Democrats—start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it “in for America,” then it’s clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama’s ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world’s ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. …

November 11, 2009 | American Thinker
Obama’s Post-American World
By Monte Kuligowski

… Mr. Obama needs a weak America to facilitate his view of global multiculturalism. No country is better than any other. So-called evil regimes are really dispossessed nations that need to be understood and brought to the table. Once at the table, we will see that our mutual interests make self interests innocuous. Old views of American exceptionalism are simply worn out.

The President is a creature of postmodern, post-Christian thinking. He is a new kind of leftist. Barack Hussein Obama is essentially a global Marxist. On a global scale, the proletariat consists of the poor nations of the world that have been oppressed by powerful, greedy, self-interested countries. The United States is the prime example of the global bourgeoisie. The evil, capitalistic country, still high on religious opium represents all that is wrong with the world. …

Mr. Obama was photographed during the 2008 campaign carrying the book, "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria. A guy running to be president of the country that saved Europe and the world from Nazism and communism and provided stability to the world ever since was reading about a post-American world. …

On the Ft. Hood massacre:

November 11, 2009 | American Thinker
Victims, Villains and Heroes
By Ben Voth

… For NPR and related ‘journalistic’ outlets, Nidal is a “victim” of the trauma associated with war. Though he had never been deployed, as a psychologist he witnessed the trauma of combat soldiers and the burdens of war and found that ‘too much to bear.’ Consequently, because of America’s ‘warmongering character’, psychologist soldier Nidal Hisan ‘snapped’ and fired more than 100 rounds at Fort Hood killing a dozen American soldiers and wounding dozens more.

The careful consideration of Nidal’s victimage stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of American soldiers at Haditha denounced as cold blooded killers by a member of the United States Congress. A U.S. Senator was willing to refer to American soldier interrogators at Guantanomo as comparable to Pol Pot and Hitler.

What American soldiers are not allowed to be is heroes. The moral consequence of this propaganda war fought by “journalists” is the increased deaths of our soldiers at home and abroad. With attacks on our bases here at home and hundreds of attacks overseas, the world has been conditioned to believe that American soldiers do not enter the world to protect the innocent but to kill them. …

11/11/2009 | Human Events
The Phantom Backlash
by Robert Spencer

… Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?

No. [Do they ever?]

Had there been any report—any report at all—of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a “backlash” after the Fort Hood jihad?

Nope. Not one. [Do they ever?] Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But Ibrahim Hooper and his fellow thugs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) need to be able to claim that hate crimes are being committed so that they can claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from such small matters as the jihad at Fort Hood. And, naturally, the clueless and/or complicit mainstream media in their hip pocket.

And so we witness the strange phenomenon of stories of Muslims fearing a backlash soaring and the numbering of actual incidents of backlash remaining at zero. In the AP story, all that followed the announcement of an “immediate” anti-Muslim backlash were various stories about mosques and Muslims asking for special police protection, and the like. So in reality, the story should have been headlined, “Muslims claim victim status in wake of Fort Hood jihad attack.” …

On man-made global warming climate change:

Nov 7, 2009 | Newsweek [to its credit]
Everyone Out of the Water! Damn the pesky models! Full speed ahead.
George F. Will

In last week’s NEWSWEEK, the cover story was a hymn to “The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.” Beneath the story’s headline (“The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet”) was this subhead: “Al Gore’s views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself.” Which was rather rude because, if true, his views have not advanced for 11 years.

There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal’s Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man’s Thinking Man—reported that global warming is “unequivocal,” there came evidence that the planet’s temperature is beginning to cool. “That,” Ball writes, “has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect.” …

On government-run health (s)care:

Nov. 11, 2009 | Town Hall
The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers
By John Stossel

I’m embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It’s a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by “experts” means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Nov. 11, 2009 | Jewish World Review
Constitutional Contempt
By Walter Williams

At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.” …

Speaker Pelosi’s constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It’s not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress’ health care proposals. It’s not a matter of whether you’re liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It’s a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue. …

Have a blessed day!

Happy Veteran's Day

Thank You.

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: Chris Matthews Has a Question

How do we know when someone like [Ft. Hood shooter] Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? ... Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

—Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Harball with Chris Matthews, November 9, 2009 [h/t Jeff Poor at NewsBusters via Wordsmith at Flopping Aces]

Huh?

 

[Pic credit: Media Bistro]

Actually, Matthews’s question is legitimate if you interpret it like this: It’s not a crime now, under the Obama administration to call up al Qaeda. We know it was under the Bush administration, with the enactment of the Patriot Act.

Is the Patriot Act still in effect? Or did that go by the wayside like so many other terrorism-thwarting tactics the Obama got rid of?

Yet, I have a feeling this was not Matthews interpretation …

“The Great One” Mark Levin jokingly calls MSNBC “MSLSD.” In light of Chris Matthews’ latest stupid-ass comment, here’s a better one: 

MSWTF

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

Diversity Lane (10/31/09): Halloween Specials

The two latest from Zack R. at the irrepressible Diversity Lane:

    

Ayatollah Khamenei Dead

At least that's what's being reported by Pravda (and we all know how reliable they can be!). And Pravda's source is the Iran opposition party sooo ... Could this really be the end of a figure who has been a cancer on the planet since the Reagan days? (Oh, sorry, one should not speak ill of the dead ... Where are my manners!?)

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: DHS Sec Napolitano Seeks to Ax "Illegal Alien" Label

Remember when the April 15 tea parties were about to happen Obama’s DHS secretary Janet Napolitano put out the report listing red-blooded American citizens, from veterans to gun owners, as “terrorists” and “extremists”? These people were (and, to them, probably still are) considered the scum of the earth. A genuine security threat.

Well, guess who is not a security threat to Ms. Napolitano? Read this post by Coach at the Collins Report and find out:

Is this woman insane? Napolitano wants illegal aliens called “newly-arrived asylum seekers”!
10/13/2009
By Kevin “Coach” Collins

As Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano was always a good friend to illegal aliens trying to sneak into our country. She gave them free college educations and free daycare for their children as any welcoming host would.

As Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano avoids even saying the words “terror” or vulnerability” proving she has no business heading HLS.

Now Secretary Napolitano has passed a new threshold of linguistic gymnastics.

According to her latest announcement the burglars who sneak into our country with their hands out who were once correctly called “illegal aliens” then “illegal immigrants” and more recently “undocumented immigrants” must now be called “newly-arrived asylum seekers.”

This perfect example of Orwellian “new speak” is a trick to make us forget Democrats plan to give illegal aliens “free” healthcare paid for by us. […]

Orwellian indeed. I guess this is how President Golden Calf is going to get illegal aliens covered by government-run health (s)care. Just change their name to “newly-arrived asylum seekers.” So much easier than trying to sell some amnesty bill.

Speaking of asylum—Looks like the inmates are firmly in control of it now. Coach asks “Is this woman insane?” Worse: She’s a liberal. 

Welcome to the future, suckers.

Liberal Hypocrisy: GOP Accused of Attacks, Incivility w.r.t. Obama's Nobel "Peace" Prize

“Shameful.”

This is how a close liberal/Democrat friend described RNC chair Michael Steele’s reaction to President Golden Calf’s selection as this year’s Nobel “Peace” Prize winner. This friend isn’t the only one to be offended. The leftocracy from TV to the blogosphere is calling Steele’s statements hateful and an “attack.”

My friend wanted to know, How dare Steele rain on the parade of a sitting president like this? This friend then declared that the level of incivility of the political climate today is worse than it’s ever been.

It’s amazing how many liberals/Democrats have selective amnesia. It’s like to them the George W. Bush years never existed. To remind my friend, who was clearly suffering from this amnesia, I asked, “You don’t think the treatment of Bush by Democrats was as bad if not worse? (I was being diplomatic. Democrats’ treatment of Bush was nowhere equally bad, but light years worse than Republicans’ treatment of Obama). My friend responded in the negative: Obama’s treatment by the right is bar-none the worst treatment of a sitting U.S. president ever.

How does one continue a political conversation with someone so far removed from reality?

One doesn’t. After a few more moments of back-and-forth, we were on to other, non-political, topics.

Oh, what was it that Steele said:

The real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

This is the brutal, hateful “attack” on Obama that has the leftocracy peeing their pants? Boy, they’ve got thinner skin than I thought.

First of all, Steele is 1000% correct. First, even liberal columnists and commentators are asking, “What has Obama done so far to deserve the NPP. He was in office less than two weeks when the February 1 nomination deadline passed! Second, Steele is also correct in pointing out that Obama’s record with the American people is dismal. I guess in Liberalese, “telling the truth” = “attack”—unless the target is a conservative/Republican, in which case “attack” = “fair game.”

Because let’s look back at some Bush accomplishments:

When Saddam was captured like a rat in a hole in Tikrit, Iraq in December, 2003, prominent Democrats’ responses were lukewarm and platitudinous. DNC chair Howard Dean congratulated the military, but could not bring himself to congratulate the president. He gave Bush no credit in this important achievement.

Remember 2005, when Iraqis came by the millions, at the risk of being wasted by a gunman or suicide bomber, to vote in the first free elections in half a century? Again, Bush’s leadership was criticized, dismissed, or ignored completely. With every election from then on were the Democrat choruses of “But we haven’t found Osama bin Laden!” “Where are the WMD’s?” “But Bush hasn’t made us any safer. Instead, he’s creating more terrorists!”

Incivility indeed.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Paul Krugman Accuses GOP of Unprincipled Spiteful Opposition to Obama

Rarely does such an example appear that so brilliantly illustrates why Projection is one of the two official defense mechanisms of the Democrat Party (the other is Denial). The other day, NY Times editorialist (and, somehow, Economics Nobel Prize laureate) penned a piece accusing Republicans of automatically opposing any policy, action, or statement made by President Obama simply out of spite. He even suggested they do so even at the expense of the good of the country. The piece starts:

The Politics of Spite
October 5, 2009

If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it whether or not it’s good for America.

I almost fell out of my chair. Is this rich or is this rich?

First, let’s tackle the problem that exists in the present tense: Barack Obama’s policies—economic and otherwise—are disastrous for this republic on every historical and empirical scale. Only in the liberal bubble in which knee-jerk Marxist-socialists like Paul Krugman reside could such a blatant fact be so elusive. And only in such a liberal bubble could Krugman see Republicans’ opposition to Obama’s policy as playing politics. If Krugman sees nothing principled in Republican opposition to Obama’s economic plans, maybe he should return that Nobel Prize in economics.

But now let’s leave the present tense and analyze Krugman fourth-dimensionally. Here’s a liberal Democrat New York Times writer accusing Republicans of opposing the president simply because he’s from the other party. Only someone who has lived on a deserted island from 2000 to the present would not be aware that this is exactly what Democrats did to George W. Bush.

Legitimacy of Bush’s election: Liberals/Democrats rejected just because it was Bush.

Tax cuts: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

Social Security reform: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

Initial response to 9/11: When they weren’t milking the My Pet Goat angle, Liberals/Democrats supported Bush for about a week, when the country was united and he was getting like a 90% approval rating. But the second it became politically expedient, Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

War in Afghanistan: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush. Yes, there were those who claimed to support Afghanistan, insisting it was necessary and legitimate but Iraq distracted us from it have now been exposed as liars. This includes Obama himself, who has shown virtually no interest in Afghanistan, even as troops are being killed at a rate higher than any time since the U.S. went in there in 2001. The lib media? Couldn’t care less about Iraq, Afghanistan, or dead troops.

War in Iraq: Need I even say it?

Patriot Act: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

No Child Left Behind: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush, except for Ted Kennedy who worked with him on it. On all other issues, Kennedy was front and center in bashing Bush. (Even righties were against NCLB; it was just a bad, albeit well-intentioned, piece of legislation.)

Spiteful opposition of Bush at the expense of the security and prosperity of the country: Hmm, let’s see …

• leaking classified information on the front page of the NY Times on several occasions
• propping up anyone who would undermine the war effort, from Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore to every author (even former administration members) who penned an anti-Bush book
• focusing on every military setback and “scandal” (e.g., Abu Ghraib, Club G’tmo, Haditha) and ignoring/dismissing/mocking every advancement (e.g., capture and ultimate execution of Saddam Hussein, several Iraqi elections)
• calling Bush (and Cheney) a liar who either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen in order to invade Iraq for a number of nefarious reasons
• bashing the troops, calling them stupid, uneducated, and even cold-blooded murderers

And so forth and so on.

Maybe someone can make the case Paul Krugman just wasn’t following what was going on during the Bush years and simply didn’t know that if George W. Bush said it, libs/Dems refuted it; if Bush proposed it, libs/Dems opposed it; if Bush believed it, libs/Dems rejected it.

But that case would not hold water. Because obviously Krugman knew about the Bash Bush at Any Cost contingent; he was part it. Consider these editorials:

Reckonings; Jerking The Other Knee   January 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column sees incoming Bush administration reflecting knee-jerk conservatism …

Reckonings; Et Tu, Alan?   January 28, 2001
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman says Alan Greenspan’s most recent testimony before Senate Budget Committee was evasive and often inconsistent; says Greenspan was out of bounds when he voiced his favor for tax cuts over spending increases; says it is not Federal Reserve’s business to support tax cut over spending for government program; says it is disburbing that man who is usually clear thinker tied himself in intellectual knots to find way to say exactly what Pres Bush wants to hear.

Reckonings; Smog and Mirrors   January 31, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column contends that Pres Bush is trying to dispel doubts about his legitimacy when he blames pollution controls for California energy crisis and uses crisis to argue for opening Arctic tundra to oil drilling; asserts that that by winning series of striking victories against moderates Bush hopes he can create an ‘illusion of a mandate’ that the election did not give him.

Reckonings; Guns And Bitterness   February 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush is betraying campaign promises on Medicare and military spending in name of tax cuts; recalls that military personnel overwhelmingly supported Bush, believing they had understanding that he would quickly expand defense spending; adds that Bush administration refuses to rule out raiding Medicare funds to support tax cut

Reckonings; Bums and Rushes   February 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Pres Bush’s call for immediate, even retroactive, tax cuts as ‘bum’s rush’ that would run skeptics out of town before they can make their case; warns of tactic that Bush’s people clearly like, as when they use California’s electricity crisis to ‘hustle through’ weakening of environmental protections

Reckonings; Slicing The Salami   February 11, 2001
Paul Krugman column explains that selling of Pres Bush’s tax cut relies heavily on ‘salami’ tactic of slicing away opposition bit at a time; analyzes ‘whole salami’ of three basic federal taxes on individuals

Reckonings; Doing the Wrong Thing   February 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Federal Reserve Chmn Alan Greenspan’s failure to try to curb tax-cutting frenzy he helped inspire

Reckonings; Fowl Play   February 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column suggests that George W Bush, who likes to bestow nicknames, call himself Chicken Little, for running around saying ‘The sky is falling! Hurry up and pass my tax cut!’; points out that economic data do not support such gloomy views, except for consumer confidence, which seems to be plunging in direct relation to dire headlines

Reckonings; Debt and Taxes   February 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres George W Bush’s tax cut is irresponsible; says federal government is running large budget surpluses right now, but most of that comes from Social Security and Medicare, which must run surpluses now, while baby boomers are still paying into them, if we are to avoid either sharp tax increase or sharp benefits cuts when boomers retire; says Bush’s proposal to divert part of Social Security taxes into new personal acccounts for younger workers would further reduc...

Reckonings; Bashing the Boomers   March 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says middle-income baby boomers will be among victims of Pres George W Bush’s budget and tax plan since he intends to ‘raid’ the funds that were supposed to support boomers’ retirement; says Social Security and Medicare were expected to accumulate almost $3 trillion in reserves over next decade, and Bush proposes to divert about $1 trillion into other uses; holds that without those reserves, Medicare will be in trouble in next decade and Social Security a bit later, bu...

Reckonings; The Money Pit   March 18, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column warns that Pres Bush’s so-called trillion-dollar tax cut is more likely to cost a lot more, and is likely to become a $2.5 trillion tax cut; holds estimates have exploded because original estimates were dishonest

Reckonings; The Hostage Economy   March 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says George W Bush’s tax cut plan is virtually useless as short-run economic stimulus; says plan delays big tax cut far into future, putting hardly any money into hands of consumers this year and not much next year; says better approach is to implement one of short-term stimulus plans proposed by Democrats, and hope that Bush’s strategy of using slowdown to press Congress into passing tax cut mainly benefiting the rich will miss its window of opportunity

Reckonings; The Levitating Dollar   April 1, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column discusses why United States dollar is still rising, even as everthing else about American economy is down lately: manufacturing, production, overall growth, and stocks

Reckonings; The Class Warrior   April 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Pres Bush’s push to pass his tax cut quickly with minimal discussion; holds plan is even more tilted toward rich than previously thought because estate tax repeal would make it easier for rich to avoid income taxes

Reckonings; Two Untrue Things   April 8, 2001
Paul Krugman column says it is not enough to scale down Pres Bush’s tax plan because it is contrary to interests of great majority of Americans and has been sold under utterly false pretenses; rejects claim that there is enough money for cuts, and that cut is for ordinary families

Reckonings; Muddled in the Middle   April 11, 2001
Paul W Krugman Op-Ed column wonders what the heartland was thinking when it voted for George W Bush, who failed to tell them that promises to cut taxes and spending meant tax cuts for the urban elite and less money for farmers; points out that Bush’s budget punishes very people whose votes, as opposed to campaign contributions, put him in power; cites Montana, which is bigger recipient of federal money than New Jersey, and notes that nobody has found example of ‘family farm’ that actually has t...

Reckonings; The Farce Is With Us   May 6, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says two pages missing from House budget resolution only begin to suggest full dishonesty of Republican leadership as it pushes through huge tax cut before anyone has chance to look at details

Reckonings; The Unrefined Truth   May 9, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column disputes Vice Pres Dick Cheney’s intimation that high gas prices are result of shortage for which environmentalists are largely responsible; says conservation should be major element in our energy strategy, and that lack of conservation is large part of what we have been doing wrong; holds this year’s gasoline price spike has nothing to do with a shortage of crude oil and binding constraint right now is nation’s limited capacity to refine crude oil into gasoline; says ...

Reckonings; The Universal Elixir   May 16, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column examines campaign by Bush administration to sell huge tax-cut package; provides facetious schedule of progress of tax cut legislation in next few months

Reckonings; Burn, Baby, Burn   May 20, 2001
Who knew that Dick Cheney had such a sense of humor? He had us rolling in the aisles after the famous put-down in which he dismissed energy conservation as nothing more than a ‘‘sign of personal virtue.’’ But the joke got much better Thursday, with the release of the administration’s energy plan. Just for laughs, Mr. Cheney threw in a few mock conservation measures. Topping the list was a tax credit for -- get this -- people who purchase hybrid gas-electric cars.

Reckonings; The Big Lie   May 27, 2001
Paul Krugman column wonders whether new Democratic control of Senate will really make difference in efforts to fend off Pres Bush’s huge tax cut

Reckonings; Bad Heir Day   May 30, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says tax legislation passed by Congress and signed by Pres Bush is absurd, noting that one provision on estate taxes would create great temptation to kill off one’s parents before Jan 1, 2011, to save half one’s inheritance; says there are other ‘weird’ and ‘bizarre’ elements in tax plan, especially some provisions that are deferred well into the future; says that someday, responsible politicians will have to ‘untangle this mess’

Reckonings; Red Tide Rising   July 6, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Senate moderates who voted for Bush administration tax cut were snookered into thinking that budget surpluses would continue; says nation will spend years paying for consequences of their gullibility; notes that only after Bush signed tax cut into law did White House officials admit that budget outlook is not rosy after all; says Congressional Budget Office’s projections next month will certainly mark revenues down; says from now on, prospect is for chronic budget...

Reckonings; Outside the Box   July 11, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column recalls Pres Bush’s solemn pledge that tax cuts would not be at expense of Social Security money, which would be kept in ‘lockbox’; reports that Bush takes some of his promises more seriously than others, pushing through big tax cuts for the rich and then discovering that lockbox is silly idea; quotes Mitch Daniels, director of Office of Management and Budget, saying, ‘box has nothing but promissory notes in it’

Reckonings; 2016 And All That   July 22, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on draft report by commission on Social Security reform, appointed by Pres Bush; holds report is ‘sheer, mean-spirited nonsense’; deplores commission’s attempt to sow panic

Reckonings; Sins of Commission   July 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scorns Pres Bush’s hand-picked commission for its ‘doublethink’ proposals on Social Security and for trying to have it both ways on how Social Security contribution dollars are used, or not used, by general treasury; debunks commission’s reasoning on trust fund

Reckonings; Rebate and Switch   July 29, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column mocks White House economist Lawrence Lindsey’s defense of Bush administration’s tax rebates

Reckonings; Feeling OPEC’s Pain   August 5, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Pres Bush’s expressions of sympathy for OPEC’s cause; suggests that his heart belongs to people, of whatever nationality, who sell oil

Reckonings; Nothing For Something   August 8, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column contends that Bush administration is not interested in realistic proposal for privatizing Social Security but intends to promote private accounts with false advertising and promise of something for nothing; says administration is equally uninterested in realistic assessment of current Social Security system, and instead will attempt to convince people that huge surpluses of today somehow make no contribution to system’s future solvency

Reckonings; Delusions of Prosperity   August 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on outlook for US economy; says excessive confidence may be part of problem causing current economic slowdown; says instead of being victims of self-fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism; says driving force in slowdown is plunge in business investment and that recovery will take more than simply trying to restore confidence

Reckonings; Enron Goes Overboard   August 17, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Enron Corp’s failed effort to become broker for wholesale electricity as deregulation spreadsd across United States; says state and local governments, alerted by what happened in California, are now wary of electricity deregulation, leaving fewer oportunities for Enron; notes that Bush administration’s faith in absolutely unregulated markets is unshaken in spite of debacle in California when it deregulated its electricity market

Reckonings; Fabricating A Crisis   August 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column accuses Bush administration of fabricating crisis over Social Security reform by building on notion that system must be destroyed in order to save it; says only serious threat to Social Security comes from those want to panic Americans into junking system, when all it needs are minor repairs

Reckonings; Pants On Fire   August 24, 2001
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman, in form of open letter to Mitch Daniels of Office of Management and Budget; says Daniels’ claim that budget surplus has vanished because of Congressional big spending is bogus; notes that International Monetary Fund’s recent report points out that Pres Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut will actually cost at least $2.5 trillion; says fact is that money that was supposed to be accumulated to pay retirement benefits will be used instead to provide big tax cuts to very, ve...

Reckonings; That Sinking Feeling   August 26, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores likelihood that Bush administration will raid Social Security surplus; fears any temporary raid on surplus would become permanent

Reckonings; Truth And Lies   August 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush broke promise not to raid Social Security surplus to finance government programs; charges that Bush continues to lie about effect of ‘ill-advised’ $1.6 billion tax cut in negating budget surplus

Reckonings; Hold Him To It   September 9, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush must be held to his promises to protect Social Security surplus

Reckonings; Paying the Price   September 16, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are partly self-inflicted because nation has not been willing to pay price of protecting itself, particularly at its airports; says spirit of the times was against anything that looked like increase in government spending unless it was explicitly military

Reckonings; What to Do   September 19, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says best way to help US economy survive terrorist attacks is not with tax cut, but with large, temporary increase in government spending

Reckonings; A Bad Week   September 23, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column assesses economic consequences of terrorist attacks on America; holds it up to government to ensure that America’s sorrow and nervousness do not turn into economic disaster; urges acceleration of flow of government spending into economy

Reckonings; Not a Fuels Errand   September 26, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column reports that as Sept 11 shock fades some old refrains are being heard, from left and right, about ‘war for oil’; explains that oil is part of background to terrorist attacks, via Osama bin Laden’s hatred of US forces in Saudi Arabia; says there is no way for now to escape awkward realitiy that Mideast oil reserves are crucial to world economy

Reckonings; The Hitchhiker Syndrome   September 30, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on political phenomenon of the ‘hitchhikers,’ people who want to use patriotic bandwagon spurred by terrorist attacks as vehicle to promote their favorite economic and tax policy proposals; contends most vocal hitchhikers are conservative pundits; finds that Bush administration has been pretty good at rejecting hitchhiker strategy

Reckonings; The Public Interest   October 10, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scorns conservative resistance to federalizing airport security to protect Americans from terrorists; observes that Bush administration, after flirting with moderation in weeks following Sept 11 attack, seems to have returned to its conviction that hard right, which is relentless and bears grudges, must be deferred to even in times of national crisis

Reckonings; Ban the Bonds   October 24, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column opposes creation of new class of war bonds to support nation’s war on terrorism as well as corporate tax cuts being pushed by House Republicans with blessing of Pres Bush

Reckonings; The One-Eyed Man   October 31, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column notes House-approved bill to repeal alternative minimum tax would give big refunds to medium-sized companies in energy and mining businesses that tend to be based in or near Texas; cites overlap between these companies and companies that would have gotten large subsidies under Vice Pres Dick Cheney’s energy plan; notes most made large, one-sided donations to Republican Party in last election; cites error in his Oct 24 column on war bonds

Reckonings; Making Windows Transparent   November 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column cites difficulty of finding good solutions to Microsoft Corp’s antitrust violations; holds proposed settlement with Justice Department might do some good

Reckonings; A Cross of Dollars   November 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Argentina’s looming economic catastrophe blames old-time economic religion, with narrow-minded insistence on monetary rectitude at expense of every other consideration; explains that since last spring conservative economists have urged Argentina to preserve its dollar peg and default on old debt instead, which is what is happening now; hopes Argentina will not sacrifice economy and credit rating on altar of discredited monetary theology

Reckonings; Another Useful Crisis   November 11, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column assesses Senate Republicans’ economic stimulus package, backed by Bush administration; holds bill offers little stimulus, and is mainly designed to lock in permament tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy

Reckonings; Other People’s Money   November 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says budgetary cost of war on terrorism, abroad and at home, is relatively small change, probably less than $200 billion; says much of projected $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus was gone before Sept 11, swallowed by Pres Bush’s tax cut last spring, and administration’s allies in Congress are now striving energetically to give away the rest in tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy individuals, thinking they can get away with it by blaming terrorism for future...

Reckonings; The 55-Cent Solution   November 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Pres Bush for backing plan that would give New York only $11 billion of $20 billion in aid promised after Sept 11 terrorist attacks; questions why planned aid cut has gotten little attention; urges New Yorkers to express outrage

Reckonings; An Alternate Reality   November 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says television news always shows Americans behaving well in wake of terrorist attacks, but some Web sites and business sections of quality newspapers reveal a different picture: Congress voting billions in ‘lump-sum transfers’ to airlines but not a penny for laid-off airline workers, House ‘stimulus’ package that contains almost nothing for the unemployed but $25 billion in retroactive corporate tax cuts and Bush administration pressing for opening of public lands to ...

Hitting The Trifecta   December 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column likens Pres Bush’s tax and budget plans to Enron, company that used cooked numbers to justify big giveaways at top and then let ordinary workers pay the price; recalls how Bush used projections of vast budget surpluses to push through huge tax cut earlier in year, and now tells us, through budget director Mitch Daniels, that entire budget, not just portion outside Social Security, will be in deficit through 2004

Eleven And Counting   December 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed article says Federal Reserve has cut interest rates 11 times this year, and has yet to see results; says Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is partly to blame for this; says sudden return of federal deficits have had impact on long-term interest rates, and it was Greenspan who testified before Congress in January on behalf of large tax cuts; says Greenspan should concede that he gave Congress bad advice

A No-Win Outcome   December 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on why economic stimulus package failed in Congress; compares original version of bill with later one to prove that Republicans did not ‘give a lot’ to get bill passed, as they claim; says question American people should ask is why Bush administration, given deadlock in Congress, did not push for minimalist package that would have been better than no deal at all; says such a package would not have lived up to hopes of administration strategists, who thought they could ...

The Scrooge Syndrome   December 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says United States has become Scrooge of Western world, least generous rich nation on planet; notes that Americans typically come up with 10 percent as appropriate amount of federal budget that should be devoted to foreign aid, about 20 times what US currently spends; says government should put its weight, and its dollars, behind World Health Organization proposal to provide basic services and medicines to world’s poor, plan that would save millions of lives each year ...

Could’ve Been Worse   December 28, 2001
Paul Krugman column reviewing economic policy in United States and abroad holds 2001 could have been worse; notes United States economy, while falling into recession, did not fall off cliff; hails farcial end to commission that was supposed to offer detailed plan to privatize Social Security

America The Polarized   January 4, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says economic polarization--the sharply widening inequality of income and wealth--is most likely source of political polarization, prompting Republicans, but not Democrats, to move to right; says response to rising inequality has been drive to reduce taxes on rich, thanks to campaign finance, lobbying, and general power of money to shape political debate; disagrees with commentators who expect that current partisanship is temporary aberration

The Quiet Man   January 8, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who gave Bush administration aid in its push for large tax cut year ago, is strangely silent now, as analysts agree that federal budget will be in deficit for at least next several years; says sudden plunge back into deficit undoes Greenspan’s own handiwork, but if Greenspan says anything now against tax cut he would have to admit, at least tacitly, that he was wrong last year; says if he worries about his reputation, he sh...

Our Wretched States   January 11, 2002
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman says current condition of states is shape of national things to come; notes National Governors Assn reports its members face combined budget shortfall of at least $40 billion; attributes this to mostly Republican governors who used questionable budget forecasts to justify tax cuts for affluent; notes Bush administration used same strategy at national level in 2001; says selective tax cuts in states were cleared with forecasts that made no allowance for contingencies...

Crony Capitalism, U.S.A.   January 15, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Bush administration fears, and press suspects, that latest revelations in Enron affair will raise lid on crony capitalism, American style; says administration, with its sense of entitlement, seems unconcerned by even most blatant conflicts of interest; says real questions about Enron’s relationship with administration involve what happened before energy trader went bankrupt; says that is when Kenneth Lay, Enron’s chief executive, allegedly told head of Federal Ene...

Listed above is every editorial Krugman wrote in the first year of Bush’s presidency in which Bush (or Cheney) is mentioned. In every one Krugman opposes Bush. Note the main themes:

Tax cuts: Both the 2001 and later 2003 tax cuts helped the economy and boosted tax revenue a lot, yet Krugman adamantly opposed them. All you get is the incessant typical Marxist-socialist "Bush favors the rich at the expense of the poor" claptrap. Notice too how Krugman criticizes Bush for trying to rush the legislation through Congress without adequate discussion or consideration. Sound familiar?

Social Security: Eight years after Krugman bashed Bush for proposing reform, Social Security is still in serious danger of going bankrupt. Krugman adamantly opposed it.

9/11: Krugman blames the Bush administration for what they didn’t do to protect us from the terrorist attacks. Those who know the rest of story know Krugman then spent the next seven years bashing the administration for what they were doing to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Here are some more highlights: Notice the small post-9/11 stimulus package Bush approved in November, 2001. Guess what? Krugman opposed it! Then he accused Bush and the Republicans of concocting a fake crisis in order to get it passed. You can’t make up more hypocritcal stuff than this!

I find it interesting that in Krugman’s May 30, 2001 piece he claimed repealing the estate tax would "create great temptation to kill off one’s parents before Jan 1, 2011." This is the same guy who in 2009 mocks conservatives/Republicans for arguing ObamaCare will lead to death panels and pulling the plug on grandma.

So, just from the first year of the Bush presidency—before Iraq, when libs/Dems really had stuff to bash Bush about—you were hard-pressed to find one editorial in which Paul Krugman did not oppose George W. Bush, even at the detriment of the nation’s prosperity and security. 

If that’s not unprincipled, politically-motivated, spiteful opposition, I don’t know what is.

Paul Krugman, you’re a class-A hypocrite. A Democrat hack with a word processor. And your constantly rebuked Marxist-socialist approach to economics sucks.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (10/1/09)

First, at National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson gives it to us straight on the current lethal state of international affairs:

October 1, 2009
Three Dangerous Stooges

Last week, three dictators — from Iran, Libya, and Venezuela — delivered lunatic hate-speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Why do these anti-Semitic dictators feel so free to damn America from downtown New York? Why do their abettors spurn our requests for help? And why do creepy regimes plot to get nukes, and fund terrorists? Easy. They do not fear, much less listen to, an indebted and energy-hungry America that either needs their cash or oil — or both.

Next, at American Thinker, Randall Hoven has all you need to know about ObamaCare, but were terrified to ask:

October 01, 2009
Nothing for Everyone

Just about all of us want some kind of health care reform. But different people want different things from that reform. One trouble with crafting legislation that would make some people happy is that it would make other people unhappy. But the proposals put forth so far by Democrats, and supported by President Obama, have the unique gift of satisfying virtually no one. ObamaCare, inasmuch as there is such a thing, is bound to disappoint you, no matter what you'd like to see in health care reform.

Next, David Horowitz at Front Page Mag castigates the mainstream media for being so busy fear-mongering about predicted right-wing violence that they’ve failed to report about all the actual left-wing violence that has been taking place:

Serious Fascists in America

There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process.

Also recommended: Peter Wehner’s Commentary post, which is cited in the above article.

Finally, the Weekly Standard has published the eulogy William Kristol delivered for his father last week:

Irving Kristol, 1920-2009
10/05/2009, Volume 015, Issue 03

In 1994, my father wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled "Life Without Father." It dealt with the subject of the family and poverty and welfare--with my father drawing for his argument, as he so often did, on a combination of social science, common sense, history, and personal experience. In the course of the article, my father briefly discussed his father, Joseph Kristol--who, he wrote, "was thought by all our relatives and his fellow workers to be wise, and fair, and good. I thought so too."

So have Liz and I always thought about our father. To us, he was wise, and fair, and good. I honestly don't think it ever occurred to us that we could have had a better father. So as we enter the rest of our life--a life without our father--we are overwhelmed not by a sense of loss or grief, though of course we feel both, but by a sense of gratitude: Having Irving Kristol as our dad was our great good fortune.

Have a blessed day!

Diversity Lane (9/30/09): Global Warning; No Stone Left Unturned

The latest from Zack R. at the inimitable Diversity Lane:

Obama's Rosh Hashanah Message - I Don't Buy It for One Second

Wanna know why this blog often refers to Barack Obama as “President Golden Calf”? Because not since the book of Exodus have Jews run to tongue-draggingly and heart-swooningly worship a false god.

Want to see a Kool-Aid drinking Jewish Obama-worshiper in action? Last week, the White House released this video of the president issuing a Rosh Hashanah message to American Jews:

Here are some anonymous responses to that video from my Facebook page:

He is a REAL person with a warm and caring heart

I think it was impressive that he took the time out of his busy Presidential schedule to offer his warm wishes to all of us. I like this guy … I find him endearing … I really mean it.

What a beautiful sentiment to bring in the new year. A great way to show how important our day is to the rest of the country. Thank you President Obama.

Nine months into the Obama presidency, these statements reflect the sentiments of virtually every Jewish liberal/Democrat I know.

Yet this is the same guy who has had close years-long relationships with virulent anti-Semites such as Jeremiah Wright (and, by reasonable extension, Louis Farrakhan) to Rashid Khalidi

This is the same guy who just last week at the U.N. legitimized the faux campaign of the Palestinian Authority by condemning the building of Israel settlements in the West Bank and employing politically-biased labels (in favor of Palestinians) like “occupation”.

This is the same guy who has yet to condemn the maniacal leader of Iran who proudly denies the Holocaust is working unimpeded on a nuclear device while promising to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

For a litany of other actions and statements by President Golden Calf w.r.t. the Jewish people, Israel, the Palestinians and Iran, see this post by Shari Hillman at the RJC blog and Barry Rubin at his blog.

Only a Jewish American Kool-Aid drinker can be so unmoved by these disturbing facts.

Incidentally, President Golden Calf wasn’t the only major political figure to voice High Holy Day wishes to Jewish Americans. These High Holy Day wishes were released the other day. Note the mentioning of the anti-Semitic remarks made at the U.N. assembly:

… I would like to offer our best wishes to the Jewish community as they celebrate the High Holy Days. With the celebration of the Jewish New Year this week and the observance of the Day of Atonement next week, we are reminded of the hopeful commitment to renewal and peace exemplified by the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people throughout history.

Yom Kippur, the most solemn and important of the Jewish holy days, is a time of reflection and supplication for forgiveness. The timeless human struggle to promote justice, harmony, and peace is seen here in this process of atonement—in humbly seeking pardon for past wrongs in the hope of a new beginning. It reminds us that if we wish to co-exist globally, we must all strive for forgiveness and tolerance.

A speech was given at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday that was full of hateful anti-Semitic rhetoric. It was a shameful display before a body whose very charter is premised on the need for co-operation and harmony in pursuit of peaceful co-existence between nations. Such talk was especially abhorrent coming as it did during the Jewish High Holidays. The world community must speak with one voice in declaring anti-Semitism and all forms of intolerance and racism utterly unacceptable. There is no place in the community of peace-loving nations for those who traffic in hate or deny the terrible atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust.

In this holy season, we join the Jewish people in the struggle to promote justice, harmony, and peace. May God bless them.

This message comes from the Facebook page of Mrs. Sarah Palin. Boy, is that woman scary!

I have not forwarded Palin’s message to my liberal Jewish friends, who, it’s probably safe to say, are not members of the Sarah Palin Facebook page! Why bother? I know from experience that Palin’s message or Palin herself will just be mocked and smeared.

Now let’s rewind to December 10, 2001. On this date George W. Bush became the first U.S. president to hold a Chanukah menorah lighting at the White House. Here were the inspiring words Bush spoke at that event:

Tonight, for the first time in American history, the Hanukkah menorah will be lit at the White House residence. It’s a symbol that this house may be a temporary home for Laura and me, but it’s the people’s house, and it belongs to people of all faiths.

The magnificent menorah before us was crafted over a century ago in the city of Lvov, which was an important center of Jewish life and culture. The Jews of Lvov fell victim to the horror of the Nazi Holocaust, but their great menorah survived. And as God promised Abraham, the people of Israel still live.

This has been a year of much sadness in the United States, and for our friends in Israel. America and Israel have been through much together. This year we have grieved together. But as we watch the lighting of this second candle of Hanukkah, we’re reminded of the ancient story of Israel’s courage and of the power of faith to make the darkness bright. We can see the heroic spirit of the Macabees lives on in Israel today, and we trust that a better day is coming, when this Festival of Freedom will be celebrated in a world free from terror.

According to a simple Google news search, this event got little media attention, and I certainly don’t recall any of my Obama-worshiping fellow tribespeople commenting on it. From that year on, the White House menorah lighting became an annual event—see here, for example, of footage of 2004, 2006, and 2008.

But Bush’s gesture didn’t go unpunished by the mainstream media. In 2005, the Washington Post published an article called “Mr. Bush’s Misstep on Hanukkah.” The WaPo condemning him for “lock of insensitivity and judgment” for the sin of holding the event on December 6. Chanukah that year didn’t begin until December 25 (does that ring a bell?).

Seriously? This is what constitutes subject matter for a major newspaper? Can you imagine the WaPo having an article like this about Obama (or any Democrat president for that matter)? Of course not.

Actually, Bush apparently couldn’t win with the Right either. In 2004, he was criticized at World Net Daily for scrubbing Jesus out of that year’s White House Christmas celebration.

The 2007 celebration was particularly poignant when Bush hosted the family of beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl for a White House Chanukah:

Yet now Barack Obama, a/k/a President Golden Calf, craps on Pearl’s memory by releasing animals like Pearl’s beheaders from Club G’tmo and by heaping ever more civil rights fought for and defended by Americans!

No speech on a TelePrompter can change that.

They say actions speak louder than words. With Barack Obama, both his words and actions spell nothing but trouble for Jews in America and Israel alike.

And yet the Democrat Kool-Aid continues to flow like Mogen David wine ...

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!