Vocal Minority

Liberal Media Bias: NY Times' Almond Laments Right-Wing Media Hate, etc.

Oy, what a glutton for punishment I am. I’m about to do something that’s painful but necessary: deconstruct an article published in the Magazine of this past weekend’s NY Times. Its author Steve Almond is given this valuable real estate to recycle the oft-argued claim that Fox News and the conservative talk radio are poisoning the political debate in this country. He then takes the argument one step further by saying he and his poor fellow liberals have been getting suckered into empowering and legitimizing them, and urges them should stop.

As we go through this article, you will surely find it, as I did, to be a nauseating combination of self-pity and self-congratulation, as well as a case study in liberal Projection, hypocrisy, arrogance, sophistry, and disconnect all rolled into one. All throughout the piece, Almond constantly does what he accuses his ideological opponents of doing. It is for all these reasons why I felt compelled to take the time to break it down.

Well, here goes …

Liberals Are Ruining America. I Know Because I Am One.

In the spring of 2006, I quit my job as an adjunct professor at Boston College to protest the school’s selection of Condoleezza Rice as commencement speaker. My resignation letter, published online by The Boston Globe, went viral. Over the next few days, I received hundreds of e-mails, evenly divided between praise and condemnation, along with numerous invitations to appear on cable television.

The most tempting offer came from “Hannity & Colmes.” As I viewed it then, Sean Hannity represented the bane of American civic life: a blow-dried blowhard paid to vilify his enemies and incite his imbecilic fans. I leapt at the chance to confront him on live TV.

A producer promised me 10 minutes of airtime, during which I would be free to voice my objections to Rice, the former secretary of state. As it turned out, my interview ran just over three minutes, much of which I spent trying to fend off Hannity’s insistence that I voted for John Kerry. Not what I’d envisioned, but I managed to outlast his bullying and even launch a few zingers before my mike was cut. I was immensely pleased with myself, and I happily accepted kudos from fellow lefties.

Over the past few years, I’ve come to view my appearance as somewhat less heroic. I hadn’t spoken truth to power or caused anyone to reassess Secretary Rice’s record. I merely provided a few minutes of gladiatorial stimulation for Fox News. In seeking to assert my moral superiority, I enabled Hannity.

OK, first of all, to paraphrase one of many commenters to this article, how would one describe a professor who quits his job because he disagrees with the politics of the commencement speaker? A extreme partisan, that’s how. A left-wing fanatic. This guy was so anti-Bush and so anti-Iraq war that he actually quit his job in protest of a single guest from the administration.

Secondly, when I read Almonds hateful depiction of Hannity as a “a blow-dried blowhard paid to vilify his enemies and incite his imbecilic fans” and the herioc depiction of himself during the interview, my Bravo Sierra alarm went off. I assumed that as a liberal Almond has paltry analytical and critical thinking skills and knows only to argue by emoting, and that Sean, to be sure a blunt straight-shooter, kicked his ass and left Almond embarrassingly shocked and awed.

Sure enough, based on the written transcript (a video wasn’t available), I was right: The reason Sean kept asking Almond to admit he was a John Kerry supporter—a question Almond dodged and never answered—was because Kerry made the exact same case for the Iraq War that Condi Rice did, and if he and his liberal ilk were to call Rice a liar then he should consider Kerry a liar too.

This, to be blunt, is the tragic flaw of the modern liberal. We choose to see ourselves as innocent victims of an escalating right-wing fanaticism. But too often we serve as willing accomplices to this escalation and to the resulting degradation of our civic discourse. We do this, without even meaning to, by consuming conservative folly as mass entertainment.

No, Mr. Almond, your tragic flaw and that of most of your brethren is that you are so deprived of facts and logic you are unable to make compelling arguments with your conservative interlocutors. And so you do what, again, many liberals do: resort to name-calling.

And that is, sadly, a recurring theme and tactic in this piece: Calling Sean Hannity and others he disagrees with (i.e., the Fox News Channel in general and Rush Limbaugh) “right-wing fanatics”. But the problem is—and some of you will disagree with me—Hannity, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are not right-wing fanatics. They have been falsely and deliberately branded that way by left-wing fanatics like Almond and most NY Times writers in order to delegitimize and marginalize them.

Disagree with me if you want, but there’s a reason Fox News gets quite a lot of Democrat and independent viewers. There’s a reason Rush Limbaugh’s audience is constantly growing larger and ever more diverse. Yes, Sean and Rush hold staunch conservative views, but that doesn’t make someone a “fanatic.” So, every time Almond uses this term to describe his ideological opponents, he exposes either a lack of self-awareness at best and blatant hypocrisy at worst. It is he, I’ve already argued, who’s the fanatic. (Again, only a left-wing fanatic would have such a problem with a very moderate Republican like Condi Rice that he would quit his job in protest of her visit.)

So let’s posit the following definition: Almond uses “fanatic” (fanaticism) and “extremist” (extremism) as pejoritives to describe a staunch conservative unashamed by his conservativism and can cogently argue his position based on the facts.

If this sounds like a harsh assessment, trust me, I’m among the worst offenders. Yes, I’m one of those enlightened masochists who tune in to conservative talk radio when driving alone. I recognize this as pathological behavior, and I always make sure to switch the station back to NPR before returning the car to my wife. But I can’t help myself. I take a perverse and complicated pleasure in listening to all the mean, manipulative things those people say.

Wow, what a freakin’ martyr you are, Mr. Almond. I can relate, because right now I am going through the mean, manipulative things you are saying.

Of course, not all right-wing pundits spew hate. But the ones who do are the ones we liberals dependably aggrandize. Consider the recent debate over whether employers must cover contraception in their health plans. The underlying question — should American women receive help in protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies? — is part of a serious and necessary national conversation.

That’s another tired meme permeating this article: That the conservative pundits are “spewing hate.”

So we’re to believe that Almond detests hate-spewing, yet writes for a newspaper that ...

• for eight straight years verbally destroyed George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice,
• smeared the troops with either endless stories about Abu Ghraib, Haditha massacre, and every other perceived setback in the “War on Terror,”
• pilloried Bush officials with particularly vicious bloodlust by pushing the non-story of the non-leaking of non-secret operative Valerie Plame,
• give the likes of Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, not to mention special guests like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, free reign to spew hate daily on their editorial pages,
• gave MoveOn.org a special deal to print their full-page “General Betray Us” ad,
• hurl invective at Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, and any other prominent Republican who get in the way of their hero Obama’s ultraleftist agenda,
• smear Americans with legitimate concerns about the radical ultraleftism of President Obama and his policies as irratiaonal racists who simply “don’t like it that there’s a black man in the White House,”
• smear Americans with legitimate concerns about Islamic terrorism as haters who are creating an epidemic of Islamophobia against poow poow Muswims wiving in ouw countwy, when no such epidemic exists,
• smear Americans with legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and its destructive consequences as Nazi-esque xenophobes who hate people who look different than them,
• has depicted the Tea Party as a bunch of racist, extremist, violent, selfish rednecks
• perpetuated the Democrat lie that Republicans are waging a “war on women” and other victims groups?

Sure, whatever.

Let me make this clear: When a liberal says a conservative is “spewing hate,” what they’re saying is that the conservative is winning the argument. Period.

Second, give that complete mischaracterization of the contraception issue, it is no wonder Almond and his leftist ilk end up spewing hate at the conservative opposition. The underlying question is and always was not whether American women should receive help (read: stuff for free). The underlying question is whether an employer whose religious faith forbids them to provide such items should be forced by the federal government to do so.

Any hope of that conversation happening was dashed the moment Rush Limbaugh began his attacks on Sandra Fluke, the young contraceptive advocate.

No, it didn’t! There was never any hope of that conversation because the Obama-worshiping left like the NY Times never wanted one! All Limbaugh did with his ill-advised “slut” remark was distract everyone from the main issue. And since the left was losing the argument on ideas, they grabbed the opportunity to use Limbaugh as a convenient scapegoat to gain favor from independents and other people not paying much attention to the issue.

Oh, by the way, Sandra Fluke was not a “young contraceptive advocate.” She was an 30-year-old well-seasoned left-wing activist used by the Obama team as a sympathetic pawn in their war against religious freedom. She was not “advocating for contraception”; she was appearing before Congress to demand that they unethically and unconstitutionally force someone else to pay for what she and she alone should be responsible for buying!

The left took enormous pleasure in seeing Limbaugh pilloried. To what end, though? Industry experts noted that his ratings actually went up during the flap. In effect, the firestorm helped Limbaugh do his job, at least in the short term.

Oh, trust me, Mr. Almond: it will be in the long term too. I’ve watched Rush’s popularity soar since following the whole Fluke kerfuffle (in the form of Facebook likes). Popular opinion seems to be still very much on his side. And, by the way, when it was made clear by Rush’s supporters that Bill Maher spews more hate at women and others in one show than Rush has in his 25+ years, what did Almond’s employer the NY Times do? Give Maher his own spot to editorialize on the issue!

But the real problem isn’t Limbaugh. He’s just a businessman who is paid to reduce complex cultural issues to ad hominem assaults. The real problem is that liberals, both on an institutional and a personal level, have chosen to treat for-profit propaganda as news. In so doing, we have helped redefine liberalism as an essentially reactionary movement. Rather than initiating discussion, or advocating for more humane policy, we react to the most vile and nihilistic voices on the right.

Well, folks, you don’t get a much better example of leftist Projection, hypocrisy, and disconnect than that!

I seriously doubt Mr. Almond has ever listened to more than three seconds of Rush Limbaugh (aside from what Media Matters clips out of context), because what Rush does—and this is why he is so damn successful at what he does!—is not reduce complex issues to ad homimen assaults. That’s what you on the left do, including the very NY Times for which you write.

It is not Limbaugh and Hannity that are “for-profit propaganda as news”—and incidently, Limbaugh and Hannity are commentators so their shows are not news to begin with!—That’s what you on the left do, including the very NY Times for which you write.

It is not the conservative shows that fails to initiate discussion, advocate more humane policy(???), or react to the most vile and nihilistic voices on their side! That’s what you on the left do, including the very NY Times for which you write. How exactly is depicting Paul Ryan as some unfeeling monster throwing grandma over the cliff in her wheelchair initiating discussion, advocating for more humane policy, or not reacting to the most vile and nihilistic voices on the left? Or painting Sarah Palin as a geographically illiterate dimwit who wants her local library to burn books??? Or the Tea Party as a bunch of racist rednecks who spit at black Congresspeole coming out of the Capitol building initiating discussion??? You are so full of s**t, Almond, it’s oozing out of every pore and orifice!

Media outlets like MSNBC and The Huffington Post often justify their coverage of these voices by claiming to serve as watchdogs. It would be more accurate to think of them as de facto loudspeakers for conservative agitprop. The demagogues of the world, after all, derive power solely from their ability to provoke reaction. Those liberals (like me) who take the bait, are to blame for their outsize influence.

Even programs that seek to inject some levity into our rancorous political theater run on the same noxious fuel. What would “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” be without the fulminations of Fox News and the rest of the right-wing hysterics?

Well, isn’t this (Frank) rich. Almond is actually citing hysterical left-wing hate-spewing media outlets like MSWTF, HuffPo, “The Daily Show,” and “The Colbert Report” as objective, non-partisan watchdogs of right-wing news outlets, and whose existence is thanks to “right-wing hysterics”? Yet again, it’s just the other way around! It is shows like Limbaugh and Hannity that exist because of the left-wing hysterics of the very mainstream media in which Almond is entrenched. Talk about a lack of self-awareness!

All right, deconstructing the first half of this insufferable article has been …, well, insufferable. Part 2 to come soon.

Related reading: Moe Lane at Red State: The Startlingly Unconscious Bigotry of NYT's Steve Almond

Liberal Hypocrisy: Senate Dems--Including Women--Pay Female Staffers Less Than Men!

Remember that "war on women" the GOP is allegedly waging? And remember that meaningless politically-charged "Paycheck Fairness Act" Obama signed when he became president?

Well, you just can't make this stuff up:

SENATE DEMS BETRAY LILLY
SENATE DEMOCRATS PAY FEMALE STAFFERS LESS THAN MALE STAFFERS

Andrew Stiles - May 24, 2012

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.

The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers.

Senators elected in 2010—Joe Manchin, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal—were not considered due to incomplete salary data.

Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.

While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previousFree Beacon analysis.

The pay differential is quite striking in some cases, especially among leading Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who runs the Senate Democratic messaging operation, paid men $19,454 more on average, a 36 percent difference.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent.

Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent
• Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent
• Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent
• Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent
• Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent
• Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent

Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male. Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accusedRepublicans of “trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.” ...

Just another in a long list of Democrat "Do as I say, not as I do". 

Elizabeth Warren Roundup

I haven't posted much, if any, about this opportunistic far-left character since she bashed "factory owners" for having the nerve to be successful. With revelations that Ms. Warren cashed in on her being 1/32 Cherokee (which may not even be true), here's the latest from the right-osphere:

Learn from Elizabeth Warren.

I think the attacks against Elizabeth Warren, who pretended to be an American Indian to advance her career, are wrong.  To the contrary, she simply did what we all should be doing!  She sabotaged America's racist affirmative action regime, or -- the term I prefer to call it -- America's affirmative apartheid.

She should be our role model.  We should all do the same thing she did and proclaim ourselves members of whichever fashionable list of preferred "minorities" the racists administering affirmative apartheid happen to be promoting this week. ...

The problem has to do with the most common error in social science: the superstitious belief in "natural homogeneity."  This is the ridiculous belief in the axiom holding that, in the absence of discrimination, every single demographic and ethnic group in society should have numerical representation in all things, in all professions and all salary classes, proportionate to their numbers in the population.  Thus, according to this superstition, any departure from perfect numerical homogeneity in "representation" must be due to discrimination.  Never any need actually to document or prove discrimination.  The statistical disparity is all the proof needed.

Meanwhile ... from Althouse:

Catching up on the news about Elizabeth Warren.

1. "The University of Pennsylvania, where Warren worked from 1987 to 1994, listed her as a minority in a 'Minority Equity Report.'  The report comes after Harvard Law School claimed Warren as a diversity hire in 1996."

2. "There is nothing left of the claim that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. The documentary sources have been debunked, and the genealogist and genealogical society which originated the story and upon whom the Warren campaign relies are not talking." 

And finally ... Preach it, brother Zo. "Spitting Bull" - love it!

Trayvon Martin: Just Another Leftist Pawn

As a father, I weep for the parents of Trayvon Martin and can't even imagine what they are going through right now.

But as an American citizen and human being, I am appalled by what the Left has done with this tragic shooting. The lies being spread by black "leaders," the pandering by President Hope&Change, the hate being spread by Obama's friends the New Black Panthers and the unabashed refusal of Obama's (in)Justice Department to do one damn thing about it. Websites dedicated to finding and killing a private citizen, George Zimmerman. The tweeting of said private citizen's (wrong!) addresses by Obama-connected Hollywood celebrities. The error-filled reporting, doctored photos, and deliberate editing of 9-1-1 tapes by the mainstream media.

Actual photo                            MSM's photo

The rash of stores being ransacked, yet more Occupy destruction, and violent attacks by blacks against non-blacks all around the country after this story went national.

I am just appalled.

Do not think for one second that President Hope&Change, the professional race hustlers Jackson and Sharpton, the opportunistic clowns in the Black Congressional Caucus, or the hateful Hollywood Left like Spike Lee give one rat's ass about Trayvon Martin. The only reason his death made national news -- a whole month after his shooting, by the way -- is because he has exactly the same thing in common with Sandra Fluke. And Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. And Debbie Bosanek (Who? I know, right?). And Crystal Mangum (Who? I know, right?). And that is: they are pawns. They are pawns used simply to score political points and to advance their political agenda.

The Left claims that Trayvon Martin is a victim of persistent white racism (even though the shooter George Zimmerman was half Hispanic, half white) and that blacks are being "hunted down like dogs". Despite substantiation that emotion-based claim, thousands have taken to the streets and even to the floor of Congress in hoodies to stand in solidarity with this purported victim of white racism!

But what of the thousands of blacks who are killed by other blacks and minorities every year? 

Rich Lowry at National Review Online spells out the Martin shooting issue well:

The Murders That Don’t Count 
In America, the lives of young black people are cheap, unless they happen to fit the right agenda.

Everything about the Trayvon Martin case is a matter of contention. About this, though, there should be no doubt: If Martin had been shot by a black classmate, if he had been caught in a random crossfire, if he had looked at a gang member the wrong way, his death would have been relegated to the back pages of the local newspaper. Not a cause, not even a curiosity: Just another dead young black man. Nothing to see here. Please, move on.

Jesse Jackson is right that “blacks are under attack.” According to a 2005 FBI report, blacks accounted for 13 percent of the population and 49 percent of all homicide victims. In 93 percent of the cases, the killer was black. Half of the victims were ages 17 to 29. That works out to 4,000 murders of young blacks in one year, overwhelmingly at the hands of other blacks. In the communities where these killings occur there is, to put it in Jackson’s inimitable terms, no justice and no peace.

There is no comparable epidemic of half-Hispanic neighborhood-watch volunteers like George Zimmerman shooting young black men. Nor is there an epidemic of cops doing the same. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute notes that in New York City, there were nine civilian victims of police gunfire last year, whereas there were “several hundred black homicide victims in the city, almost all shot by other blacks or Hispanics, none of them given substantial press coverage.”

An allegedly racially motivated killing, though, gins up the outrage machine in a way the routine murder of young blacks doesn’t. Cable-TV outlets get to host fiery debates. Chin-stroking commentators get to urge more “dialogue.” Black leaders get to relive the glory of a civil-rights cause that won its major victories decades ago when it took real courage to be on the front lines. And everybody gets to evade the intraracial mayhem that blights the country’s inner cities.

An injustice may well have been done in the handling of the Martin shooting, but let’s not fool ourselves. Zimmerman could be arrested, convicted, and hanged tomorrow, and it will have no effect on the lives of young black people in communities beset by social disorder. Whatever happens to Zimmerman, the drip-drip of spilled blood will continue, all but ignored except in the police blotter. In America, the lives of young black people are cheap, unless they happen to fit the right agenda.

One such example of a minority victim unusable as Leftist political fodder is Aliyah Shell, age 6. She was killed St. Patrick's Day weekend while sitting on her Chicago porch with her grandmother, caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting. The Chicago Tribune writes:

From Jan. 1 through Sunday [Mar. 18], homicides soared 42 percent, to 94 from 66 a year earlier, according to a police spokeswoman. ... That continues a troubling trend that started in the last quarter of 2011. Police say gangs are to blame for much of the violence, including Aliyah's killing.

This leaves blogger Doug Ross to wonder:

So where are the professional race-baiters like Al "Not So" Sharpton and Jesse Jerkson? Where is MSNBS, ABS, CBS and NBS Nightly News? Where are the New Black Panthers and the other thugs seeking to profit from Trayvon Martin's death?

They don't give a crap about Aliyah Shell, or the hundreds of others killed and wounded every year in Obama's hometown of Chicago.

No, they care only about fomenting hatred, division and dissent.

P.J. Salvatore at Breitbart.com picks it up from there, arguing that the exploitation of Trayvon Martin's death by the Left has all the familiar political motives:

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” 

Why? Why would the president weigh in on this specific case at this specific time? 

It’s not about wrong or right. It’s not about justice. It’s not about Trayvon Martin.  

“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change.”- Saul Alinsky

An interesting quote to consider, from the man who shaped the minds of those who shaped President Obama.

Now consider Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s notorious statement: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” 

The meaning is the same. It is calculating and it is dangerous, part of a bigger picture--a multi-faceted war to divide America for the sole purpose of securing Obama's re-election and subsequent radical social change. 

Look at the contrived conflicts on the left wing's political chessboard:

Move 1   Occupy Wall Street: the (self-appointed) 99% versus the 1% 

Move 2   Contraceptive/abortifacient mandates: government versus religion

Move 3   Sandra Fluke: women versus conservatives (supposedly)

And now…

Move 4   Trayvon Martin: black versus "white" (so-called)

This is not complicated. President Obama is organizing. It’s that simple, and it’s straight out of the radical playbook:

“Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on...” – Saul Alinsky

This is not about Trayvon Martin. This is about divide and conquer. Hope and Change has been replaced with Us vs. Them. This about pitting Americans against Americans.

Yup.

Interestingly, all the people I mentioned above -- Martin, Fluke, Bosanek, etc. -- are extremely flawed specimens in the Left's utopian tinkering with America. Every one of their stories concocted and promulgated by the Left -- including our own preisdent! -- false apart after just a mere examination of the actual facts.

But the Left is allergic to facts. Facts prevent them from "fundamentally transforming" America, as one particular president has put it. So they use these "victims" all the same. The rewrite history just as quickly as history occurs. They point fingers at imaginary culprits (e.g., Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, right-wing Islamophoooobia, right-wing homophoooobia, etc.).

And millions of Americans buy in to their fallacious stories because the Left knows that enough Americans have been dumbed down enough to believe anything they are told.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Trayvon Martin deserved to get shot or even that George Zimmerman is not guilty of a crime! But let's face facts: Despite the attempts of the mainstream media to paint him as a boy scout, he had multiple suspensions from school and was clearly well-steeped in the drug-filled, profanity-laced, sex-abusing, bling-sporting gangsta thug lifestyle that has claimed many a young African-American's life.

This is where we are, folks: A country where blacks are at war with whites, women with men, Muslims vs. non-Muslims, the 99% with the 1%, the uninsured vs. the insured, etc. There is rioting in the streets from Manhattan to Oakland. This is Obama's America. And don't tell me for a second that he does not love this. He and his closest relations have purposely opened up this can of worms. What better way to distract the populace while he and his administration continue to tear down the foundations of this republic bit by precious bit.

Just above P.J Salvatore argued that "Hope and Change has been replaced with Us vs. Them." I disagree: Hope and Change is and has always been Us vs. Them.

Welcome to the future, suckers.

Some New Vids: The Great One and a Great American

Everyone should watch this video taken at the Reagan Library last Friday. It is Mark Levin at last Friday's book signing -- Levin's last for his latest book "Ameritopia."

There is also this young up-and-coming great American by the name of Kira Davis. She's the one whose "Apology" video went viral last month. Here she is again doing a "Smart Phone Smart Minute". Go get 'em, Kira!

Sensible Liberal: Bill Maher (Well, Sorta) and Kirsten Powers

I'm just letting you I still think Bill Maher is an un-funny foul-mouthed G~d-hating dimwit and he's probably just covering his own rear end. But he does deserve props for devoting time on his Friday show to defend Rush Limbaugh's free speech and call on offended liberals to chillax:

“I got crap from both the left and the right this week because — OK, let me address the left first, because I found this more disheartening,” Maher said. “They were very mad at me because I tweeted that people like Rush Limbaugh — who I absolutely disagree with, I’ve never said a good word about him, I did a whole monologue about what an asshole he was only a week ago — but I said I don’t like it that people are made to disappear when they say something or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don’t like. That’s America. Sometimes you’re made to feel uncomfortable, OK?” ...

“Can we put this in perspective?” Maher said. “No one died. A guy made a bad joke, a bad joke because a — it was a disgusting sentiment that he was evoking and also because it wasn’t even a joke. It’s a stupid fat fuck who is not funny and it annoys me that people who cannot keep two disparate thoughts in their own mind lump me in together with him and say I’m defending him. I’m not defending him. I’m defending living in a country where people don’t have to be afraid that they might go out of the bounds for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesmen?” ...

“Let me give you a quote from the ACLU, liberals,” he said. “[T]he ACLU — what more liberal bastion is there than that? ‘It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something that many find reasonable, but the defense of freedom of speech is more critical when the message is something that most people find repulsive.’ We’re looking at you, Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? I would rather put up with Rush Limbaugh and live in a country where we all do have freedom of speech. And the people who I’ve heard say, when they put pressure on his sponsors, the system is working. No it’s not. That’s the system being manipulated. I lived through that 10 years ago.” ...

Maher also reasoned that neither he nor Rush were "misogynist," but merely "potty-mouths." He then offered a cool apology for making statements about Sarah Palin that were construed as anti-woman.

Liberal Democrat Kirsten Powers also wrote an op-ed, not to defend Rush, but to point out there are plenty of liberal men who also owe women apologies for their remarks.

But even though Powers was right not to exonerate liberals, I think Maher is right in that neither he nor Rush were misogynistic, just foul mouths.

Let's be honest though: Maher uses more foul language in one hour than Rush in a year.

P.S. For the record, at 6:43 PM on Saturday, March 10, Rush has 1,042,063 Facebook fans.

An Observation About the Rush/Fluke Controversy [w/ UPDATES]

I'm not here to rehash what others, both left and right, have said about this controversy with El Rushbo calling radical feminist activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute." I only want to predict that the backlash against Rush by the Democrat-media complex is going to backfire. On the contrary, I think this hitjob on Rush is going to make him even more popular.

How do I know?

Call me crazy, but when I watch the Ditto Cam or catch up on audio rewinds on-line, I like to watch the Facebook "Like" gauge tick up. Though I hadn't been writing any of the numbers down, I would say that Rush's website was getting 150-200 new likes over the course of a 24 hour period (no small number to be sure).

Last Thursday, around the time the Fluke fit hit the shan, Rush had 1,034,000 likes. Ever since then, I noticed his Facebook fan base was increasing 150-200 in just a few hours.

When I started writing this post at 9:25 PM Rush had 1,039,233 likes. That is an average of 1,000 new Facebook fans per day over the past five days. 

And these are just Facebook fans. One can only imagine how many new non-Facebook listeners he has gotten since late last week. 

UPDATE: 9:40PM, merely 15 minutes later, Rush has 30 more Facebook fans. Again, I didn't keep record before, but I am certain this rate is several times higher than before the Sandra Fluke "slut" backlash.

The American people are seeing through the Democrat bullsh!t.

At least that's my hunch.

I'll update this post in about 12 hours and see how many more he gets.

UPDATE: March 7 @8:10 AM

That's another 350 Facebook fans in 10 1/2 hours -- and it was the wee hours in the U.S. too.

UPDATE: And, as promised, here's 9:40 AM, 12 hours from last night's last post:

So, in 12 hours (most of those being overnight), Rush got 436 new likes. Assuming he'll get a little more during the next, mostly daylight 12 hours, he'll still be averaging 1,000 new likes per day.

Way to go, Rush!

Despotism and Tyranny ... They're Heeere

Two great pieces at AT today address the continuing reckless and unconstitutional power grab of the Obama administration.

Citing other columnists and great patriots in American history, Lee DeCovnick writes:

Thomas Jefferson reaches out over the centuries to counsel us that,  "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." The requirement for such forceful change will results from a cascade of bitter failures within our social and governmental institutions. We are not at that fork of history. However, thoughtful conservatives must look toward some uncomfortable duties, a start of redress, to stem our current slide into tyranny.

That initial redress starts today when each one of us begins to reach out, one on one, to our liberal neighbors, co-workers, friends and family. We must patiently discuss today's headlines within the context of the Declaration of Independence. By educating and reminding them of America's self-evident truths, unalienable rights, and that our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, we open minds and give substance to the looming icebergs of tyranny, dead ahead.

Redress also means that Congress must start doing its job. Congress should follow the Constitution by actually writing the laws in public view, rather than fob them off on the Executive agencies. And Congress must de-fund and forever decertify the existence of the czars. Or else we must vote these damn Congressional monarchists out of power. These ideas are less radical then those written in the Declaration. To believe otherwise renders us all silent passengers on that "long train of abuses and usurpations."

Americans, Lincoln and Jefferson's people, may have but a single Constitutionally mandated opportunity to avoid a further "rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler." November 6^th, 2012 will become a crucial day of national reckoning, not unlike that warm July day in Philadelphia, two hundred and thirty-six years ago.

Next, J. Robert Smith blows huge gaping holes in the left's defense of the "contraceptives for Catholics" mandate:

You've got to hand it to liberals.  They stick to a script.  On the contraception-Catholic Church flap, the script is that most Catholic women favor contraception (and, one guesses, abortion-inducers).  Ergo, the Catholic Church should buckle under and accept President Obama's mandate.  Conscience and religious liberty (and a little thing called the 1^st Amendment) just don't stack up against what a majority of Catholic women want -- or what liberals say they want.  You know, vox populi and all that.

So if vox populi is good enough for the Catholic Church, why not for liberals and the Democratic Party -- or more exactly, for policies favored by both?  Like ObamaCare.  ...  

Liberal talking heads, like little wind-up toy soldiers, have been all over the airwaves, yakking about the supremacy of "women's health" and what a majority of Catholic women are supposed to want.  (Isn't it nice how liberals always appoint themselves spokesmen for others?  Call it the Jesse Jackson syndrome.  The Reverend Jackson has an unerring talent for showing up and speaking on behalf of people who never asked him to.)

If liberals are all fired up about majority rule, why shouldn't they apply that principle to ObamaCare? ...

But that's not how majoritarianism works, evidently.  See, where liberals can use majority sentiment to justify and advance their statist polices, well, by all means.  Hence, efforts to bulldoze the Catholic Church and mangle the 1^st Amendment are cloaked in a concern for what a majority of Catholic women desire.

When a liberal policy aim fails to muster a majority, tough luck.  ObamaCare is what Americans need, whether they want it or not.  Liberals insist on it.  And what could average Americans possibly know about what's good for their welfare?  If liberals and government can't run other people's lives, what purpose is there for either?

Take another issue: federal spending.  According to Gallup, a lopsided majority believes that Washington spends too much.  No need for more or higher taxes, either. 

November 6, 2012 cannot come soon enough.

 

Libs are the true aggressors in culture wars

From Jonah Goldberg at JWR.

The real motive behind this backlash [against Susan J. Komen For the Cure] is to make it very clear: You must choose a side -- ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy. As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism's moral vision. You're either with us, or against us -- which means we shall be against you.

KOMENIZE: The Tolerant Left Invents New Word to Celebrate Its Perceived Victory for Abortion

From the Hillbuzz blog:

Today I spotted the first usage of the word “komenize” — which the Tolerant Left has coined to describe targeting a charitable organization that does something they disagree with in an orchestrated and sustained effort to annihilate its fundraising efforts.

It’s debatable whether this is what’s really happening at the Susan G. Komen Foundation right now, but it’s a great example of how effectively the Tolerant Left commandeers language and how quickly it manipulates zeitgeist and culture for its own aims.

Conservatives are incredibly foolish to cede ground to Leftists on anything — but that’s exactly what conservative writers and pundits do every time they use the word “liberal” to describe a “Leftist”. That’s like calling a cockroach a “hug-a-bug” or saying “undocumented worker” instead of the more accurate term “illegal alien” (or, even better, the portmanteau of “crimmigrant”).  There needs to a new word invented for how monstrously stupid it is to ever agree to the Tolerant Left’s favored verbiage and say “Pro-Choice” instead of what it really is — Pro-Abortion — when Leftists go out of their way to say “Anti-Choice” instead of “Pro-Life”. ...

And from a Hillbuzz reader:

Just when you think the Left couldn’t be more evil . . .

Let’s recap: A organization that kills innocent human beings for a living, along with its radical supporters, were so offended by the elimination of a voluntary contribution by a non-profit dedicated to curing breast cancer that was a whopping 0.07% (that’s zero-point-zero seven percent — less than one tenth of one percent) of their annual budget that they set out to destroy the non-profit, all the while claiming that they weren’t the ones politicizing the issue and that they were being bullied. And the Leftist media supported them all the way, including hiding the Planned Parenthood CEO’s lies about them doing mammograms. Now Komen is distrusted and disliked by both sides.

The only good news is that others will think more carefully before getting involved with Planned Parenthood. Oddly enough, people who kill babies for cash have some unpleasant traits.

 

 

The Wrath of the Abortion Movement Unleashed on Komen

Unfortunately, yes. From an actual OBGYN, at AT.

The vicious fury of pro-abortion lobby is the real story of the decision of the Komen foundation to detach itself from grants to Planned Parenthood.

Liberal Media Bias: CNN 'Developing Story': 'Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?'

Un-freaking-believable. Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters has this report about a developing CNN story: 

CNN 'Developing Story': 'Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?'

Seeking to breathe new life into the political damage of unproven sexual harassment charges against him, CNN's Lisa Sylvester presented viewers with a "developing story" in the 4 p.m. hour of The Situation Room entitled "Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?"

Sylvester glommed onto "recent controversial comments" Cain has made, such as referring to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "Princess Nancy," and saying that "tutti-frutti" is the ice cream flavor that would best describe Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

I can't believe this is considered news or anything worth discussing period, let alone making a story around. Saying "Princess Nancy" is anti-woman??? This is the same brain-dead mentality that incited Herman Cain's supposed "victims" of crying "sexual harassment"! Calling Pelosi "Princess Nancy" is more than apt. I could think of much worse.

Where was Donna Brazile when Sarah Palin was called the worst names by the staunchest of Obama supporters? What about all the misogynous attacks on Michelle Bachmann? Crickets chirping. Just like with all the racist attacks on Herman Cain (which is all this is)?

This talentless hack who must have gotten her journalism degree out of a Cracker Jack box continued:

"Some critics see him as the anti-women candidate," Sylvester insisted of Cain, turning to "CNN contributor Donna Brazile" who "says he has a credibility problem with women." Sylvester failed to note that Brazile is a liberal Democratic strategist who contributed to President Obama's campaign this September.

Donna Brazile??? Of course she contributed to the Obama campaign! She's not just a Democrat strategist, she's a bitter partisan and wholly biased liberal hack. She's the woman who ran Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, infamously saying that they weren't going to "let the white boys win."

And she's a CNN contributor? Jeez, what a surprise. Curiously, to this day CNN has not done a story about whether Donna Brazile's then-candidate Al Gore was the "Anti-White" candidate. (I know what you're thinking: Wait, Al Gore is white! Silly reader, you're trying to look for logic in a statement made by a liberal!)

They are just throwing everything they can at Herman Cain until he goes down.

Racists.

Here's Stimulus Money Well Spent ...

As usual, WSJ's James Taranto hits one out of the park:

Remember the "stimulus," or, as it was officially titled, the Recovery Act of 2009? It was President Obama's first major legislative initiative, enacted the month after he took office with only Democratic votes in the House and just three Republicans in the Senate (one of whom was a Democrat by that summer). The price tag was huge, some $800 billion, or 50 times the size (in nominal terms) of the stimulus Bill Clinton proposed at the outset of his presidency. Congress killed the $16 billion Clinton stimulus because it was too expensive.

Unemployment that January was 7.6%, and Obama's economic advisers warned that it could rise as high as 8% without the stimulus. With the stimulus, it rose as high as 10.2% in October 2009. Last month's rate was 9.2%, still 1.2 points higher than the level the stimulus was supposed to prevent us from ever reaching. By contrast, in January 1993 unemployment was 7.3%. Without the Clinton stimulus, it had declined to 6.5% by the end of that year.

Oh well, at least school janitors in Nebraska have "diversity manuals," as the Omaha World-Herald reports:

The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive. . . .

The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that "channel wealth and power to white people," that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should "take action for social justice."

The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and "ableism," defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. . . .

The Omaha school board approved buying 8,000 copies of the book--one for every employee, including members of the custodial staff--in April.

Your tax dollars at work! Or rather, your tax dollars will be at work for years paying the interest on the money the federal government borrowed from the Chinese to pay Omaha's diversity-manual bill.

Now, one might reasonably object that this is but an anecdote. The law of averages makes it a certainty that some of the stimulus money found its way to less utterly appalling uses than this one. What it didn't do, however, was accomplish its stated objective: keeping unemployment from rising above 8%. ...

It's a common refrain among those who lust to increase government's size and power: Every failed measure justifies more of the same. Poverty programs make it harder to escape poverty? We need more poverty programs! Racial preferences heighten racial division? We need more racial preferences! And a diversity manual for every janitor in the country! When ObamaCare ends up driving the costs of medicine up and the quality and availability down, you can bet the people who created that monstrosity will claim it failed only because it didn't go far enough.

Let's generalize this into the First Rule of Liberalism: Government failure always justifies more government. As Obama said today, complaining about Republican pressure to cut spending: "I'd rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes--like new programs." Fortunately for the country, the voters don't always agree.

Fortunately is correct. The 2012 elections can't come soon enough.

Who's Really Anti-Choice? (Giving Liberals a Taste of Their Own Medicine)

Did you ever see that bumper sticker that says, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

Think of the inanity of that statement. To the pro-abortion crowd, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is no different than whether or not to see a movie or whether or not to purchase an iPhone. Don't like a certain movie? Don't see it! Don't want an iPhone? Don't buy one! What logically follows, they believe, is: Don't like abortion? Don't have one! It's simply a personal choice (that five lawyers in black robes one day decided was a constitutional right) and no one has the authority to "force" a woman what to do with an unborn child. 

But the main difference is that seeing a movie or buying a piece of electronics doesn't involve the destruction of an innocent tiny human. In fact, when those who are pro-abortion argue their position, the baby is the farthest thing from their mind, if it enters their mind at all. The baby necessarily doesn't factor in; it's just a dispensible clump of cells until the very second every inch of her body enters the world.

Not only does the pro-abortion crowd willfully ignore the inhumane gruesomeness of an abortion -- if you don't think it is willful, consider the hellstorm that ensues every time it is suggested young people actually be shown footage of an abortion being performed -- but they also mischaraterize the position of the anti-abortion position. They would have us believe that those who are anti-abortion are actually anti-woman, i.e., they want to control women in general and impose their rigid traditionalist "patriarchical" views on them. This is why those against abortion are also often called "anti-choice": such people supposedly don't want women to be able to make any choices for themselves, including abortion. 

While these descriptions might be politically advantageous, they are wholly inaccurate. If people who were anti-abortion were anti-woman or anti-choice, why is there no other area in which such people seek to restrict women's behavior? Where are those anti-choice types who are trying torestrict a woman's choice to have a career or stay "in the kitchen," for example? Where are all those Neanderthals attempting to restrict women's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.?

There aren't any. But when those who are pro-abortion call their opponents "anti-choice," that is the message they are trying to convey. When pro-abortion liberals call anti-abortion conservatives "anti-choice," it makes my skin crawl. Conservatives are not anti-choice, we're just anti-abortion. And for good reason. Abortion is murder, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how many lawyers in black robes declare it a constitutional right.

My purpose in bringing this all up was to try to give liberals a taste of their own medicine. Because if there is any group of people in this country that is truly anti-choice, it is the American liberal/Democrat. What if we took that abortion bumper sticker and fashioned it to defend conservative positions:

Don't like guns? Don't get one!

But liberals/Democrats generally hate guns, and because it is they who are truly anti-choice, they have done everything in their power, including ignore the Constitution, to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.

You know how liberals scoff at abstinence programs, claiming they're not effective? You know how hell-bent they are from keeping abstinence out of schools' sex ed curricula in favor of promoting "safe sex"? They're always telling us that young people are going to have sex anyway and that instead of making the unreasonable demand that they abstain, adults should instead teach them how to do it safely. Well, why then do liberals insist on "gun abstinence," i.e., gun bans and gun control laws? If they were consistent, they would favor "safe shooting"? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, people are going to shoot guns. Why not simply educate them as to how to properly and safely use them?

Oops, there I go looking for logic and consistency in liberalism!

How about these:

Don't like SUV's? Don't drive one!

Don't like incandescent light bulbs? Don't use them!

But most of the liberal/Democrat left are devout practitioners of the religion of environ-mental-ism. And while constantly decrying the creeping theocracy allegedly being foisted upon the American people by the "religious Christian right," the religious environ-mental-ist left gleefully foists upon us their religion. Thus, it's not enough for them merely to dislike certain types of cars, the incandescent light bulb, coal-powered electricity, toilets with enough water in them to actually flush correctly, (and if  you live in California, the plasma T.V.!). Having bought into the hoax of man-made global warming climate change, the anti-choice left has succeeded in or is currently attempting to ban those items which allegedly contribute to it. 

This one is for all the liberal/Democrat food fascists out there:

Don't like trans-fats / salt / sugar / soda / Happy Meals? Don't consume them!

Yet in cities like San Fran and NYC nanny state busybodies have not only made it a point to avoid these items, but they have made it illegal for you to decide whether or not to eat them. On food, these liberals/Democrats are anti-choice. They clearly never thought that what you eat is a "personal choice between you, your partner, and your doctor" like a certain other thing ...

And speaking of NYC, here's one more:

Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them!

O.K., I know what you're thinking. Smoking pollutes the air and makes it uncomfortable for people around them to breathe. Fair enough. That's what smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants used to be for. That's what outside is for. In other words, there are plenty of places where smokers can engage in their disgusting habit without disturbing others who want clean air.

But in many places around the country, all public establishments and even outside venues like parks are non-smoking. Even bars, where smoking is to be expected and tolerated? Yes, even bars. Even cigar clubs, whose raison d'être is to be a place where people come to ... um ... smoke! Yup. Some states even ban people from smoking in their own homes and cars if there are children close by. 

On smoking, liberals are vehemently anti-choice. Restaurant and bar owners don't even have the choice whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments, if that's what their clientele prefers. The anti-choice left has made that decision for them.

There are plenty more examples out there but I think you get the point: When it comes to being anti-choice, liberals beat conservatives hands down. Want to choose your food, your toilet, your light bulb, your car, whether or not to bear arms or a place to smoke? To the anti-choice left the answer is: "Oh no, you don't. Those things are (or should be) illegal! Prohibited! Banned! Fined! Taxed!"

But suggest that there shouldn't be abortions and these very same people will rise up with their stupid clothes hanger in hand and shout, "How dare you impose your views on others, you fundamentalist anti-choice zealot!"

Then they'll drive away in their tin can of a hybrid car with a bumper sticker on the back that reads, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

You think they'll ever stop being blinded by their own self-righteousness to notice this hypocrisy?

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Hollywood Hatred for Sarah Palin

These Hollywood celebs are shameless. And sexist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/29/sarah-palin-critics-the-undefeated

Liberal Hypocrisy: Jon Stewart Goes "Amos" on Cain; Liberals Laugh

Bernard Goldberg says everything I've been thinking ever since Jon Stewart mocked Herman Cain to a rolling-on-the-floor (presumably mostly liberal) audience. First, he correctly points out the blatant double standard:

Let’s say a white guy goes on television, puts on an exaggerated Amos ‘n Andy “black voice” and proceeds to make fun of a black man whose politics the white guy doesn’t like. Actually, let’s say he goes beyond merely making fun of the black man. Let’s say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid. Does that make the white guy a racist?

The correct answer is … it depends.

If the white guy is Rush Limbaugh and the black man is Barack Obama, then of course the white guy is a racist — according to liberals.

But if the white guy is Jon Stewart and the black man is Herman Cain, the conservative businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, well, then, that’s another story.

The other night Jon Stewart went on his show, and while he didn’t put on blackface makeup and start tap dancing he did put on a “black voice” and proceeded to mock Mr. Cain in a way that would never be tolerated if a conservative had done it.

Yet liberals didn’t scream “racist” the way they do when they see some guy at a Tea Party rally or when conservatives so much as look askance at Barack Obama. Instead, they laughed. For them, it was a regular riot when Jon Stewart, someone they adore, made that conservative black guy sound like a dopey character in a minstrel show.

But why isn’t Jon Stewart a bigot, when Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly would be tagged as racists if they had done the very same thing? That’s easy. Because Jon Stewart is a liberal and liberals aren’t racists. It’s a physical impossibility. Only conservatives are racists. And if you don’t believe me, ask any liberal.

Yes, this is really, really dumb, but liberals really, really believe it. This delusion stems from a deeply held belief that liberals are not just right about the issues and conservatives just wrong. It goes way beyond that. Liberals believe they’re morally superior to conservatives. And morally superior people are never racists. Racism is the domain of morally inferior people — you know … conservatives. 

Then Goldberg discusses why liberals like Stewart dislike Herman Cain:

But we all know what Herman Cain’s real sin is, why liberals think he’s fair game. He’s a black man who has strayed from the liberal plantation. And that is something liberal elites — the supposed benefactors of black people in America — have a tough time dealing with.

Finally, a strategy in response to liberal criticism of black conservatives:

On the O’Reilly Factor recently, I told Juan Williams who was sitting in for Bill, that conservatives should do what liberals have been doing for years — they should play fast and loose with the word “racist.” They should promiscuously call every liberal who criticizes Herman Cain — or any other conservative black man — a racist. Not because it’s true, but precisely because it’s a lie.

Let’s see how those superior liberals feel when they’re the ones being slandered, when they’re the ones being maligned as racists simply because they oppose a black man’s conservative policies. Let’s see if they recognize that they’re the ones who perfected this form of slander, by calling conservatives racists simply because we disagree with President Obama’s liberal policies.

So, is Jon Stewart a racist for doing his Amos ‘n Andy routine to make fun of Herman Cain? Yes! Absolutely! And I will say that over and over again, every chance I get — even though I don’t believe it. And I won’t stop until my liberal friends finally get it. 

I’ve thought of doing precisely this for quite a while. If liberals’ everyday speech comprise of phrases like “that racist George W. Bush!” or “that sexist Rush Limbaugh!” when neither such character assassination is warranted, why can’t conservatives do the same to liberals?

After all, not only did Jon Stewart pull the Amos n’ Andy routine that would’ve gotten any conservative fired in about six-and-a-half seconds, but notice he also accused Herman Cain of not knowing how to read, or at least not liking to read. Can you imagine if a <i>conservative</i> suggested that a black person had a problem with reading? He would be fired in <i>four</i>-and-a-half seconds! But, as Goldberg argues, Stewart gets away with that too because he’s a liberal and liberals by default aren’t racists.

To quote an old Bill Cosby routine: Right!

Incidentally, Stewart is so intelligent (like Obama) that he either misunderstood or misrepresented Cain’s demand for three-page Congressional bills. Cain was making a very reasonable and cogent argument; only a liberal like Stewart wouldn’t get it. Why he or his audience even thought that bit was funny is beyond me. It would almost be as stupid as if a liberal misunderstood or misrepresented the “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution. Oh, wait …

So from now on, perhaps I will say “that racist Jon Stewart!” And also “that racist Joe Biden.” Not only did he call Obama a “clean, articulate” black man—as opposed to an ebonics-speaking thug lookin’ like a fool with his pants on the ground—but he also said you couldn’t go into a 7-11 without an Indian accent. This is the man Obama picked as V.P.!?

From now on, I could easily speak of “that sexist Bill Maher” and “that sexist Bill Clinton.” And I’d be much closer to the truth. Rush Limbaugh has never called a woman a “tw@t,” let alone a stupid one, as Maher did recently before a laughing (and presumably mostly liberal) audience. He certainly hasn’t faced credible accusations of sexual assault by several women over the span of a decade, as Clinton has.

To conclude, then, I’d say I agree with this entire Bernie Goldberg article except for one thing: When he threatens to wantonly call liberals racist he says he does it because he knows it’s a lie. If I were to start doing it, it would be because I believe it’s the truth.

P.S. Herman Cain did appear on Fox & Friends and said he didn’t think Jon Stewart’s comedy “act” was racist. I think Cain is giving him too much credit.

 

 

 

 

 

By Insulting Palin, The New York Times Gives Itself a Black Eye

By Insulting Palin, The New York Times Gives Itself a Black Eye
June 23, 2011
by Anita Finlay ("Ani")

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, offered his version of a poison pen letter to Sarah Palin in his piece entitled Sarah Palin’s Tom and Jerry Problem. In it, he claimed that “If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote.” He is sure “most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea” of a Palin presidency. But it is more accurate to say that they recoil at anyone they cannot control. Palin has always been a wild card. When elected Governor of Alaska in 2006, successfully taking on big oil and corruption in her own Republican Party, she was considered a liberal darling. How times change.

In his editorial, Mr. Keller may as well have called Palin an ignorant rube. I’m surprised he didn’t refer to her as one of the “flyover people.” Yet his behavior may not be helping the cause of elitists like himself, or the Democratic Party, for that matter. When even actors, and Obama supporters, like Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore tweet their disgust at big media’s witch hunt of Palin via their scouring of her 24,000 e-mails as Governor – so called “journalists” are in far more trouble than Palin is. “Journalist” credibility and respect are slowly whittling away to zero.

Keller wishes to pretend that journalists are a small part of Palin’s problem – but their sense of entitlement is the entire problem. The media picks our presidents. The very idea that we are not waiting with baited breath to find out who they think should be the Republican placeholder designed to be beaten by their already anointed President is infuriating to them.

Keller talks about the “profound and mutual lack of respect that is not quite like any I recall between a candidate (or pretend candidate) and the press” and in so doing forgets the horrid lack of respect that Hillary Clinton endured in her historic 2008 run for the presidency. At the time, I wrote to the New York Times public editor complaining of their coverage, accusing them of being little more than biased fishwrap. Of course, they exonerated themselves, claiming their bias was insignificant at best. Poppycock!

Their earlier behavior toward Hillary was not lost on Palin. Why should she work to earn the respect of a group that has already made their minds up about her and lives to catalog and celebrate her every misstep?

Mr. Keller offers barely veiled angry and petty complaints about her contempt for the media, but then again, he never had anyone going through his garbage, as Palin did when 30 lawyers were commissioned to head to Alaska during the 2008 campaign to dig up dirt on her. I also doubt he experienced what it would be like to have an infant of his own with Down Syndrome be publicly excoriated and ridiculed. Let’s look at this Keller comment:

The evidence of Palin’s scorn for what she calls the lamestream media is abundant, but I was struck by the gratuitous quality of one remark she tossed off during that Rolling Thunder rally in Washington the Sunday before Memorial Day. When an NPR reporter asked what had brought her to the event, she replied, “It is our vets who we owe our freedom — not the politician, not the reporter — it is our vets, so that’s why we’re here.”

While Mr. Keller is irritated she did not make a more gracious statement, Mrs. Palin is spot on. Powerful politicians in cushy surroundings with large expense accounts and reporters angling for seven figure book deals, often trading accuracy for access, do not matter as much as the brave men and women putting their lives on the line for their country.

Keller also opines that “one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome. Her best defense against being found shallow is a strong offense.” Keller ignores that our own President has a penchant for personally criticizing anyone who dares to criticize him, yet I doubt Keller would ever accuse the President of suffering from “imposter syndrome.” The rest of Mr. Keller’s article pretends at patience, making allowances for Palin the way one would a slower or weaker adversary. Oh, pity her. It’s the best she can do, poor dear. Ah, yes, let’s try ridicule.

He criticizes her characterization of Paul Revere’s ride, but a pack of historians have come out to back up her version. He conveniently ignores how many males, including our current President and Vice President, have made inaccurate statements bordering on the nonsensical only to be given pass after pass on their mistakes. Keller quotes her low poll numbers, compelled to condemn the woman he insists has no chance in the race. He says journalists find her “confounding” and “frightening” and yet he cannot resist picking at the scab. He complains about her peculiar “bus tour” and yet she has not declared as a Presidential candidate. The press is under no obligation to follow her. He and his media cohorts make their own misery and then blame her for it. Sound familiar?

In what he describes as their “use-hate relationship,” Keller demands that Palin acknowledge big media’s importance rather than bypassing traditional media outlets by reaching out to the people directly via facebook, twitter and her own books. Mr. Keller is almost whining: “Damn it – pay attention to me! Make me relevant.” She has got him pitching fits. And he is not alone. Even CNN had to admit that the recent research project to bust Palin through her email correspondence has backfired in the media’s faces – showing her to be “a hardworking and capable executive.”

If I find someone confounding, frightening, unprepared, irrelevant, or otherwise unworthy, I just cross the street. Why spend so much column ink to rip someone to shreds if you are so sure she can never get anywhere? This is not logical. And they call women hysterics…

Keller states that “[t]he press, I think, returns her antipathy in part because she makes us feel ridiculous.” But no one can make you feel anything, isn’t that so? If he feels ridiculous, he would do better to look in the mirror rather than blaming a woman who is currently a private citizen for his troubles.

Mr. Keller ignores the larger dilemma – big media is rendering themselves irrelevant. Sarah Palin is just capitalizing on a trend. As long as we continue to see this sort of condescension or level of scrutiny not equally meted out to both men and women, or to both sides of the aisle for that matter, media outlets will continue to see their numbers decline.

That is Mr. Keller’s real “Tom and Jerry Problem.”

 

Feminists Decry a False War On Women and Ignore Worldwide Gendercide

Actual feminist Lori Ziganto at Human Events has this blood-curdling story about the trend of female fetuses being destroyed just because they're female. The so-called feminists who incessantly accuse conservatives/Republicans of waging a "war on women" (Debbie Whatsername Schultz anyone?) are OK with this, because to impose the slightest limitation on abortion is completely out of the question to these murderous fascists. This is the twisted lib logic you have to accept when you're a leftist "feminist": Murdering 163 million baby girls in the womb precisely because they're female is an expression of woman's "reproductive rights" (Can I tell you how much I hate that soulless expression?). But suggesting prohibiting the practice of gender-based abortion is waging a WAR ON WOMEN!!!

Pass the Tylenol.

Reason #47354 I Will Never Rejoin the Reform Movement: Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss

Let me preface this post by emphasizing that I know URJ president Eric Yoffie personally. Although we are friends, we are quite aware of each other’s political differences. This post is in no way an attack on his character but merely a strong disagreement with his positions and, by extention, those of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). Likewise, although I do not know his presumptive successor Rabbi Jacobs personally—we might have met once a few years ago—I’m sure he is a decent human being and my issue is with his positions and not his character. That said …

From where I stand, the Reform Movement has been in need of a change. Even the NY Times admits that the movement was “facing a recent decline in numbers and an uncertain future despite its stature as the largest movement in American Jewry.”

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m sure some of that decline is due to the continuing secularization of today’s youth, as well as the long-standing problem of Jews marrying non-Jews and their subsequent abandonment of the faith. But I have a sinking suspicion that there is another reason membership in the Reform Movement is dwindling.

Ever since the URJ took a public stand opposing George W. Bush’s War in Iraq in 2005, I’ve been amazed how many right-leaning (and Bush-supporting) Reform Jews have come out of the closet to speak their mind. And ever since the new Moshiach was elected president in 2008, those numbers have climbed even more.

Then there’s the conservative Reform Jews who have “come out” to me personally, but not to the public. With still school-aged children needing religious education and the requirements to become a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (at age 13), they begrudgingly remain members, paying dues to a synagogue that in turn pays its own dues to a national organization that promotes positions 180 degrees opposed to your own.

Other Jewish righties I know have in fact left our local Reform synagogue, chosing to educate their children at a local Chabad, or keep Jewish learning in the home. Myself, I left the Reform Movement over a year ago, with no intention of returning anytime soon. Not a month goes by where I witness this and other Reform synagogues are awash with left-wing/Democrat programming and propaganda.

Oh, Reform clergy, educators, and committee-people will insist that they’re apolitical, open-minded, and tolerant of all views.

Really? Visited the website of the URJ’s Religious Action Center (RAC) lately? Pick an issue: environ-mental-ist issues, abortion (excuse me, “women’s rights”) environ-mental-ist issues, oil, environ-mental-ist issues, government-run health (s)care, environ-mental-ist issues, 2nd Amendment rights, environ-mental-ist issues, welfare and poverty programs, environ-mental-ist issues, radical Islamism (oh, did I mention environ-mental-ist issues?). Every one of these topics is—coincidence of coincidences—identical to that of any far-left Democrat Party member. If it didn’t threaten their 501c3 status, they probably could just link to the DNC’s website and get it overwith.

Start 'em young!

This is not what I signed up for. If I wanted to teach my children to be good little lefties and walk in unswerving lockstep with the Democrat Party agenda, then the nearest Reform congregation is for you. If you want to meet Al Gore, far-left Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [Would you believe the very day after I wrote this blog post, Wasserman Schultz was appointed by Obama as DNC chair!], and any liberal Jewish Hollywood celebrity, then the RAC is the place to be.

But if you want to hear from Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, David Horowitz, Aaron Klein, Caroline Glick, Congressmen Eric Cantor or Michelle Bachmann, forget it! At this Centre of tolerance and open-mindedness, non-lefties need not apply.

So, with more and more righty Reform Jews being bothered by the URJ’s political agenda, who do they choose to replace outgoing President Rabbi Eric Yoffie? Meet Rabbi Richard Jacobs from Westchester County, NY. I’m sure Rabbi Jacobs is a very nice, decent fellow. But what are the main priorities of the incoming president of the nation’s largest Jewish organization?

For Jacobs, that means embracing environmentalism, helping in places like Darfur and Haiti, and speaking out in support of the Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. He speaks with pride of his synagogue’s green initiatives, noting that its Ner Tamid, or Eternal Flame, is solar powered. He is chairman of the New Israel Fund’s pluralism grants committee, which promotes religious and social pluralism in Israel. He is a board member of the American Jewish World Service, with which he visited Darfur refugees in Chad in 2005. He wears a green Darfur bracelet on his wrist.

Darfur nad Haiti? Wonderful. Religious and social pluralism in Israel? Of course, I get it.

But environmentalism? Green initiatives? Going solar? (I actually know a Conservative temple that is going solar, so it’s not just the Reform movement). This is a priority? Oy vay. I’m all for conservation and recycling, but the man-made global warming climate change hoax has completely taken over this movement!

Supporting the mosque near Ground Zero? Oy! Why don’t we just surrender to all the world’s radical Muslims and cut off our own heads? Dhimmitude on display, brought to you by the URJ. 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Geraldine Ferraro R.I.P.

This just in:

Geraldine A. Ferraro, who earned a place in history in 1984 as the first woman to run on a major party national ticket for vice president, has died. She was 75-years-old.

Ferraro, who was born in Newburgh, New York, passed away today at Massachusetts General Hospital while surrounded by her loved ones, a statement from her family read. The cause of death was complications from multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that she had battled for twelve years, her family said.

Ferraro was one of the more decent, level-headed Democrats. In fact, in early 2008 Ferraro was lambasted by the politically correct liberati for daring to state the politically incorrect truth: Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination was snatched by an unaccomplished, inexperienced, America-hating Marxist/socialist simply because he was black (don't look at me like that; you know it's the truth).

This statement of truth and the backlash from the perpetually-offended left earned her spots on Hannity and other conservative shows throughout the spring of '08.

R.I.P.