Vocal Minority

Obama's Revenge: Day 17 (2/6/13)

Remember the good ol' days when George W. Bush was demonized as an imperial president abusing his executive power by doing ... well, G0d knows what?

Remember how the Democrat-media complex were apoplectic with rage about how he and his Cheney-Rumsfeld junta "rushed" us to war supposedly without Congressional authorization?

Remember how they were nuts about his violation of countless sections of the Bill of Rights when he passed the Patriot Act? How worried they were that both American citizens and enemy combatants wouldn't be afforded Due Process rights.

And remember how they protested in the streets demanding the closing of Club Gitmo, where poow poow innocent tewwowists were getting tortured by Bushie's evil henchmen? 

And remember how they compared Bush to Hitler and other historic tyrants for "warrantless wiretapping"? How worried they were that both American citizens and enemy combatants wouldn't be afforded privacy rights.

That was then. This is now.

Of course, Bush's offensive in both Iraq and Afghanistan were initiated with complete Congressional authorization.

As president Obama himself has renewed the Patriot Act with nary a peep from the Bush-haters.

Despite being one of his primary campaign promises in 2008, Obama has yet to close Club Gitmo, again with nary an objection from the Bush-is-Hitler crowd.

And what of those Due Process rights the Left is so interested in protecting?

It has been known for a while, despite White House obfuscations and obstructions, that Obama has been sending unmanned drone aircraft to the Middle East to kill individuals suspected to be Al Qaeda or other dangerous terrorists. Fine by me.

Except some of these targets have been American citizens who for one reason or another became radicalized and became fighters for jihad. Again, I couldn't care less if these cretins' time on earth was suddenly curtailed. But if they are still American citizens, why are they not being arrested and given their Constitution-secured Due Process rights?

The White House hasn't told us. Even worse, now that a White House memo has been leaked, the administration is actually defending the practice.

Oh, but it gets better. These drones have not only been used in the Middle East. Drones have been spotted flying low on U.S. soil. Which has led about a dozen states, with blessing from the ACLU -- thanks, guys. Where the *^#@ have you been? -- to look to ways to restrict drone use over their skies. 

Oh, but it gets even better. Turns out, the U.K. Guardian has reported some major U.S. news outlets, the same outlets who lambasted George W. Bush for nearly his entire presidency for being an imperial president, has purposely kept a lid on the story. 

US news organisations are facing accusations of complicity after it emerged that they bowed to pressure from the Obama administration not to disclose the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia despite knowing about it for a year.

Amid renewed scrutiny over the Obama administration's secrecy over its targeted killing programme, media analysts and national security experts said the revelation that some newspapers had co-operated over the drone base had reopened the debate over the balance between freedom of information and national security.

On Tuesday, following Monday's disclosure by NBC of a leaked Justice Department white paper on the case for its controversial targeted killing programme, the Washington Post revealed it had previously refrained from publishing the base's location at the behest of the Obama administration over national security concerns.

The New York Times followed with its own story on the drone programme on Wednesday, and an op-ed explaining why it felt the time to publish was now. ...

The NY Times, huh? The same NY Times that couldn't wait to splash anti-Bush anti-war propaganda on their top-fold front pages.

The same NY Times that sensationalized the non-story called Abu Ghraib. 

The same NY Times that couldn't wait to disclose classified information on its front pages despite admonitions from the Bush White House. 

The same NY Times that worked to put a sympathetic face on the hardened terrorists supposedly tortured by Americans at Club Gitmo.

The same NY Times that gave the detestable MoveOn.org a discount on a full-page ad smearing then-General David Patraeus. 

The knowingly sat for over a year on revelations that the Obama White House had been using drones to assassinate American citizens overseas. 

The late great Andrew Breitbart didn't call them the "Democrat-media complex" for nothing.

Three questions, by the way:

(1) Why is this story being reported in a non-American newspaper?

(2) Why is the White House defending the use of drone assassinations, and if there's nothing wrong with it, why did they and the news outlets that propagandize for them keep it from the public for over a year?

(3) Don't you find it funny that this is all coming out after the election? Hmmm????

Obama's Revenge: Day 4 (1/24/13)

‎"Vote! Voting is the best revenge." - Barack H. Obama, Nov. 2, 2012

(Yes, I'm already 2 days behind in this. So sue me)

President Hope&Change's determination to decimate the military and turn it into an emasculate glorified peace corps contingent continues. Look, I don't care if women are allowed to go to the front lines. If they have the skills and the, um, cajones, then all more power to them. 

But there's more that went on: The relieving of duty of General James Mattis, who had replaced Gen. David Patraeus as head of CENTCOM since August 2010.

From Michael Walsh at Wednesday's NY Post:

Lost in the inaugural hullabaloo was Tuesday’s news that President Obama has relieved Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the colorful and highly decorated Marine who’s been in charge of the crucial US Central Command, which oversees the various wars in the Middle East, since 2010.

Mattis is famous for his blunt style and blistering aphorisms — “be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet” was his clear-headed advice to the Marines he led during the treacherous Iraq War. He’ll retire from both CentCom and the Corps in March, several months short of his expected tour of duty.

Walsh goes on to conclude that Obama's letting Mattis go was political and ideological. AWR Hawkins at Breitbart explains the firing was because Mattis dared questioned the omniscient Obama's Middle East Policy:

In particular, it appears his questions surrounding the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear ambitions drew the ire of civilian military and security advisers. 

These civilians were apparently upset by the way Mattis pushed them to "consider second and third-order consequences of military action against Iran." Nor did they appreciate the way he pushed them to think long term and consider what the U.S. will do if Iran develops non-nuclear weapons that can be used to keep U.S. ships out of the Persian Gulf.

Mattis also expressed concern over the consequences of certain aspects of the U.S. approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems this line of reasoning didn't sit well with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

James Lewis, in a provocative piece in yesterday's AT, agrees, writes:

Real human progress comes hard, very hard.

There are heroes in the world. Most of humanity doesn't come close. Compared to Dr. King and Abe Lincoln, Obama is a hollow man, clinging to a faith outworn.

General James Mattis is being fired for insisting on complete contingency planning, according to Pentagon reporter Tom Ricks. Truth-telling isn't welcome in this administration, and that means big trouble ahead. General Mattis and the military understand that. The general insisted on full planning for all predictable outcomes.

Obama is a gambler, and he doesn't want to think about what might happen if his wild gambles don't pay off. He is amazingly overconfident. General Mattis is a thinker. He is a responsible combat leader.

The differences are huge. [...]

General Mattis rose to fame by the success of his combat strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Mattis who taught his Marines to tell the population that "we are your best friend and your worst enemy." In Iraqistan a lot of people got that.

In Afghanistan, after the Brits withdrew from Helmand Province with serious losses, the U.S. Marines took over the battleground. They practiced the Mattis Doctrine, walked combat patrols and risked personal death and injury to let the people decide. Today Helmand Province is pacified -- at least until Obama skedaddles outta there. 

The Taliban are now holed up in the mountains. They are very patient fanatics.

So we have Obama firing a very effective, albeit "controversial", general. We have Hillary wriggling like a worm on a hook during these ridiculous Benghazi hearings. And we have the Democrats' favorite military-bashing traitor John Kerry at the top of the short list for Secretary of State.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Liberal Media Bias: DBF* Media Sunday Shows Mum on Benghazi

There's a reason I call them the DBF (Democrat b*tt-f**king) media: Jedd Babbin at AmSpec and Katie Pavlich at Town Hall explain.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/29/media_ignores_benghazi_on_sunday_shows

Liberal Media Bias: No "Absolute Moral Authority" for Karen Vaughn?

Who's Karen Vaughn, you ask? Good question. Her son Aaron was a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan a couple months after the Osama bin Laden killing. Now Vaughn and other parents of dead officers want answers from the Obama administration why they "put a target on" her son's back by publicly spiking the football and divulging information that should've remained classified.

The administration, no surprise, isn't spilling any beans now. In fact, they're quite tight-lipped now! And parents are getting pissed.

This, of course, is not the first time parents of dead warriors are demanding answers from the POTUS. And that's why Tom Blumer at NewsBusters is wondering out loud why Maureen Dowd has to date no article on the "absolute moral authority" of Karen Vaughn.

You see, back in 2005, Dowd and the rest of the DBF* media helped make one Cindy Sheehan a national celebrity for demanding answers from the Bush administration about her son Casey's death. Yet every news outlet except Fox has yet to even mention Karen Vaughn, let alone turn her into a cause célèbre.

Blumer asks Dowd:

So, MoDo -- Doesn't Mrs. Vaughn have "absolute moral authority" over Barack Obama, a president living in "meta-insulation" which dwarfs that of Bush 43, who has "burrowed" into over 100 rounds of golf, endless campaign fundraisers, and celebrity schmoozing, and whose administration is so consumed by the need for self-promotion that it would rather leak details of a secret operation and even allow a preelection movie about it to be produced and released regardless of "the human consequences" of its actions?

If so, the least you could do is say so. If Mrs. Vaughn has somehow not earned "absolute moral authority," do tell us why.

I know why, and, of course, so does Blumer: Because then the president was a reviled Republican and now the president is a lauded Democrat. Dowd had no journalistic principles, intellectual honesty or professional integrity then, why would she now? Cindy Sheehan, of course, was no mere grieving mother; she was a fervent radical leftist anti-war advocate who traveled the world to publicly shill for the enemy. Yet a women who IMO should have been tried for treason was lionized by the DBF media for well over a year during the Bush administration.

The media used Sheehan as a pawn to get to Bush the way they couldn't. They have no such use for Karen Vaughn or any military parent critical of the Obama administration.

As long as leftist hacks like Maureen Dowd occupy the lofty offices of the NY Times building, there will be "moral absolute authority" for some, not for others.

DBF* = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

Liberal Media Bias: 2,000 U.S. Troop Deaths in Afghanistan - Only CBS Reports

Oh, you didn't know that this week we hit the 2,000 marker of troops killed in Afghanistan? If you get your news from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or PBS you probably don't. They didn't report it. To its credit, only CBS covered it. [h/t Tim Graham at NewsBusters]

Compare that to DBF* media coverage when that grim milestone was reached in Iraq. On that day in October, 2005, those channels devoted significant time discussing it, as well as opining how it would negatively affect then-President Bush's popularity. In fact, it was with a very noticeable relish that the DBF media clocked war deaths (mostly in Iraq). It was almost a standard part of nightly news reports and lib talk shows and was always a pretext for bashing the warmonger George W. Bush who, along with Dick "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!" Cheney, was sending innocent kids to die.

But this week's Afghanistan marker? Not a mention from all but one network news station. Gee, I wonder why ...

Here's another inconvenient truth you're not going to hear from the DBF media: According to JustForeignPolicy.org, in the 7 years of U.S. action in Afghanistan under Bush there were 575 troop deaths (82 per year). In the 3 1/2 year under Obama there have been 1,348 deaths (385 per year).

But you probably wouldn't get that information from ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC (and probably CBS too).

Nor are you going to hear any criticism of Obama war policy in Afghanistan, no grieving mothers-turned-activists, no Code Pink or ANSWER rallies, no Hollywood "actors" accusing President Hope&Change of sending innocent kids to die.

*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

Video of the Day (2/24/12): Another Apology

Well, it's happened again. Obama has apologized to a not-really-ally for -- gasp! -- the inadvertent destruction of Qurans in Afghanistan. Did Afghan leader Hamid Kharzai apologize for the two young American soldiers murdered there this week? Of course not. Did Obama ask for an apology? Of course not.

In light of this, here's my new friend Kira offering an apology of her own:

For those of you who are vision impaired: yes, she is black, female, and -- gasp! -- Republican (or at least conservative).

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Muslim World with Obama vs. Bush

Rhetoric:

Remember that lib/Dem narrative that George W. Bush caused all the world's Muslims to hate us and that Obama's election was supposed to "restore" America's "moral standing" in the world, particularly with Muslim nations? Well how has that worked out?

Reality:

[h/t the Bad Rachel blog]

Yeah. Real nice.

 

 

 

Liberal Media Bias: Time Lumps Middle Eastern Protesters with Occupy Thugs

Glad I'm not the only one who is slightly disgusted by Time naming "the protester" the Person of the Year.  Jack Cashill at AT writes:

Yesterday, Time Magazine named the "Protester" its person of the year.  Lumped in this category were sundry Tunisians, Libyans, Greeks, Russians, and -- the without which not of Time's interest -- those Americans "who occupy public spaces to protest income inequality."  Not surprisingly, Time championed this protest: "Everywhere, it seems, people said they'd had enough."

At Time Inc., not all protesters are created equal.  Last year, when it had a chance to give that "diffuse collection of furies and frustrations that calls itself the Tea Party" its due, Time named Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "Person of the Year."  It was an obvious slight, especially since the Tea Party protesters actually knew what they had "had enough" of.  In November of 2010, their efforts led to something tangible -- namely, the gain of 63 Republican seats in the House and the loss of Democratic control.  That obviously did not impress Time in the way Time would hope to be impressed.

Equally troublesome, but less obvious, is Time's disregard for the individual protester whose cause does not hew to the progressive party line.  I have gotten to know several of these people well.  Up close, through their travails, I have been able to see just how media bias shapes not only the fate of the protesters, but also the flow of history.

As might be expected, Time Magazine did not choose to cite the one serious protester who served real jail time in 2011.  That would be Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.  Unknown to Time readers, Lakin spent five months in prison at Fort Leavenworth before his release in May of this year.  His crime -- his real crime, that is -- was to challenge Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president.

Lakin never claimed to know where President Obama was born or whether he was eligible.  The problem, as Lakin saw it, was that no one knew.  As an Army officer, one sworn "to support and defend the Constitution," he felt an obligation to pursue the truth. ...

Cashill is absolutely right. How dare Time equate Tunisians, Libyans, as well as Syrians, Iranians, and Egyptians -- people who have been literally oppressed and who have actually lost lives -- with the spoiled bratty entitled pieces of excrement of the Occupy movements. Makes one's blood boil. Seriously. 

Also infuriating is, as Cashill documents, Time's dismissal of the Tea Party two years ago. Just another liberal rag pushing a liberal agenda.

Why I Left Liberalism #21 - They Can't Handle the Truth: Liberal Friends Respond to Attack on French News Office

It's like a broken freaking record:

(1) Yet another violent act in the name of Islam occurs somewhere around the world.

(2) Politically correct head-up-their-ass apologists insist the act has nothing to do with Islam (or at least with authentic Islam).

(3) Those who dare to attribute the attack to the global threat known as radical Islam are accused of "Islamophobia" or are at least admonished for blaming an entire "community" just because a couple of kooks does something violent.

Yesterday, in an incident reminiscent of the Danish newspaper "Mohammed comic strip" ordeal, a French news office was firebombed for daring to disrespect Islam's dear prophet:

Fire at French newspaper after Muhammad issue
By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — A firebombing that destroyed the offices of a French satirical weekly that "invited" the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor was denounced Wednesday by Muslim leaders and politicians from all sides.

But behind the public show of unity was a silent fear that the spoof could trigger a wave of violent protests among western Europe's largest Muslim population, and beyond.

No one was injured in the blaze that started around 1 a.m. in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in eastern Paris, hours before the issue featuring a caricature of Muhammad on its front page hit the newsstands.

"Everything will be done to find those behind this attack," said Interior Minister Claude Gueant, visiting the newspapers burned and disheveled offices.

The director of the weekly, who goes by the name Charb, called the issue "a joke" and defiantly held up a copy of the paper as he stood amid the rubble. He vowed that next week's issue would be published.

"We'll do it with pencils and paper," said one writer, Patrick Pelloux, on the i-Tele TV station.

The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, with its typically cutting humor, was focussed on last week's victory of a once-banned Islamist party in Tunisia's first free elections and last month decision by Libya's new leaders that Sharia, or Islamic legislation, will be the main source of law in post-Gadhafi Libya.

A police official cited a witness saying that someone was seen throwing two firebombs at the building. The official was not authorized to speak publicly while an investigation was in progress.

Charb, the director, said a Molotov cocktail lobbed into the offices caused the fire. He blamed "radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is," for the attack. ...

You got it? It wasn't Muslims, but rather "radical stupid people." And where do these "radical stupid people" get their ideas from? A voice in their head?

But it's not just the newspaper director who refuses to accept the truth. When I posted this story on Facebook, two of my liberal/Democrat friends responded in part like this:

FB Friend #1: Is it really necessary to lump an entire community together when a group of extremists does something insane?

FB Friend #2: Why is it necessary to dehumanize and degrade the entire religion with this kind of phrasing? Is there not value in making distinctions between the thugs who cannot bring their religion out of the 14th century and those Muslims who do practice their faith in peace? And how can we ask those that do practice a peaceful brand of Islam to be brave and stand up with us against the extremists in their religion if we continuously mock their religion. ...

It should be mentioned that one of these writers, who I know to be a big Obama fan, doesn't seem to hold the President of the United States to the same standard as s/he does me. For the past few weeks President Golden Calf, Veep Biden, and other prominent Dems have been ratcheting up the leftist base accusing Republicans as a whole for booing gay soldiers and for wanting people without health insurance do die.

This because at a recent GOP debate two to three people in an audience of thousands booed not a gay soldier but the loaded question the soldier asked, and because at another debate two to three people in an audience of thousands cheered at a question posed to candidate Ron Paul whether a 30-year-old man who was irresponsible enough not to purchase his own health insurance should be "left to die" by society.

These two occurrences were enough for countless members of the Democrat-media complex including Obama himself to paint the entire Republican Party as enjoying booing gay soldiers and wanting uninsured people to die.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

Who can recall when only 11 months ago, when a lone crazed kook shot down Arizona Dem. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, the most prominent members of Democrat-media complex took to their respective megaphones to point at the "climate of incivility" created by Sarah Palin (???), conservative talk-radio, and the conservative / Tea Party faction of the Republican Party! President Golden Calf himself traveled to  Tucson to usher in a new "Era of Civility" (which he and the Democrats immediately reneged on the second he walked off the podium, by the way).

To add insult to injury, the Tucson shooter wasn't even associated with or inspired by any Republican whatsoever, yet the Democrat/liberals blamed the Republican Party anyway! 

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

And finally, even to this day -- as Obama- and Pelosi-approved Occupy Wall Street protests continue to create ravage, destruction, and violence upon dozens of U.S. cities -- the Tea Party Movement is painted as being extremist, radical, and possessing "elements of racism".

Why?

Because the Democrat-media complex says so, that's why. No substantiation of accusations necessary when you're of the Left.

But if one needs a specific example, a Tea Party-hater would probably cite the hurling of 15 racial epithets and spitting at black congresspeople when they walked out of the Capitol building after passing the Obama(Doesn't)Care bill.

Except that never happened, and video footage and a yet-unwon $100,000 bet proves it never happened.

But, believing that it did happen, the Democrat-media complex used the fake story to paint the entire Tea Party as racist and violent.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

I think you get the picture.

To conclude, I am so tired of the notion that it is unfair to point out the continual execution of violent acts of many members of a community. Perhaps my Facebook friend's Muslim neighbor doesn't condone violence in the name of their religion, and my Muslim neighbor doesn't either. But many Muslims have and continue to commit violence worldwide. Even before the French news office bombing happened, Coptic Christians in Egypt and their churches are being attacked by Muslims in Egypt, and a "Palestinian" woman is reported in the news to be pleased that her fifth son has sacrificed his life as a suicide bomber.

The West is committing suicide with the p.c. head-in-the-sand belief that unless every single Muslim commits an act of terror, you dare not attack them! Well screw that. My children's lives are more important than offending the Muslim community, OK?

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Paul Krugman

There are a lot of curse words coming to mind having read Paul Krugman's blog post in today's (Sept. 11) NY Times. For now I'll just call him a very despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Here is just a part of this atrocity of a piece -- for which he has deliberately disallowed comments from online readers:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

The reason I call Krugman despicable and partisan is because he has the audacity to call the nation's only leaders "fake heroes". How dare you, Krugman, you piece of you-know-what? Kerik, Giuliani, and especially Bush were real leaders on 9/11 and afterward. They acted like adults and made tough on-the-spot decisions. Krugman wouldn't know what a real hero is because his heroes include Barack Hussein Obama, himself a despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Krugman's hero is, as Rush Limbaugh calls him, a "man-child," an immature petulant little brat who even nearly three years into his presidency blames everyone else for his own failures.

Why hypocritical? Krugman accuses professional pundits "who should have understood what was happening" of taking the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the alleged corruption of the "neocons"? The only pundits I followed were those who understood that the world has good and evil and that it was not only morally correct but life-saving to take a side. My favorite pundits understood that for at least a decade prior to 9/11 a vicious sect of Muslim radicals had been metastasizing into a worldwide cult of murderous terrorists. Manhattan and Washington D.C. were simply their latest target; they had already successfully bombed several U.S. embassies and military entities. And when that happened Bill Clinton -- another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- took the easy way out and turned a blind eye!

On the contrary, it was Krugman himself as well as his colleagues at the Bush Sucks Times and other liberal media outlets who used their word processors and microphones to commit what I would call treasonous acts against this nation. It is Krugman and company who gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies with their Bush- and America-bashing rhetoric. It is Krugman and company who turned a non-story like Abu Ghraib not only into a weapon to bash Bush with, but as a motivation for radical Muslims around the world to hate America even more! It is Krugman and company that made up libelous accusations against our military, who made up stories about Qurans being flushed down toilets at Club G'tmo, who made it a point to lie about Bush's own military record when a certain Communism-loving traitor named John Kerry -- yet another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- ran against him in 2004. It is Krugman and company who have created the disgusting myth that America suffers from an epidemic of "Islamophobia," when the truth is that even after 9/11 Muslims have had it pretty damn good here. It is Krugman and company who have emboldened radical Muslims in this country by threatening Americans with litigation if they report the "wrong people" (read: non-white) doing something suspicious on a plane.

Finally, the hypocrical and morally bankrupt Krugman writes that the memory of 9/11 has been "poisoned" and has become "an occasion for shame." I actually agree with that, but not for the same reasons. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned and shamed the memory of 9/11. They barely refuse to even mention that it was radical Muslims who committed 9/11, or the London train bombing, or Mumbai, or Bali, or Fort Hood, etc., etc. They don't even want you to know that since 9/11 Muslims have murdered over 17,000 human beings in the name of their religion. The words "Muslim" and "Islam" have been all but whitewashed from the mere 1o-year-old history of 9/11, when it should be the central focus. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned 9/11 by turning it into a day of self-reflection (What did we do to provoke them?), a day of community service, of celebrating diversity and discussing bullying and other forms of multiculti liberal crapola. Radical Muslims have had no problem calling us out as the enemy. It's in their books and TV shows (even for children), newspapers, mosques, and manifestos, and yet the only time head-up-their-ass loony leftists like Krugman do not bring up the M- or I-word is when it's an opportunity to write about how Americans are somehow terrorizing them. Sorry, Krugman, you little know-nothing twerp, it is people like you who have taken the easy way out and turned the other way to the reality called Islamic jihad. It is people like you who have poisoned the day and shamed the memory of those who lost their lives. And it is leftists (not Krugman himself but they know who they are) who poisoned 9/11 by calling it an "inside job" created by Bush and Cheney and their cabal of "neocons" and "oil buddies".

Do NOT think that just because 9/11 is already 10 years past that you can rewrite history so easy.

Other people blogging about this pathetic pathetic man: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Fire Andrea Mitchell, John Hayward at Human Events.

 

 

 

 

Quote of the Day (9/10/11): 9/11

"One of the lessons of 9/11 is that evil is real. And so is courage."

- George W. Bush, Shanksville, PA, Sept. 10, 2011

Florida Sun Sentinel Writer: Lt. Col. Allen West Needs to Have His Mouth Duct Taped Shut

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism goes off on a "senior writer" at the Florida Sun Sentinel for bigoted and ignorant words about Congressman Allen West. Will anyone notice?

Florida Sun Sentinel Senior Editorial writer Nicole Brochu yesterday published what I generously call a poorly-written rant worthy of print only on a bathroom wall. It’s embarrassing that this was treated as a serious editorial and published under the newspaper’s masthead. Surely the Sun Sentinel’s standards for publication have yet to sink so low that hysterically bitter diatribes insulting the service of an American veteran and sitting congressman are considered acceptable for publication. It is the single most embarrassing newspaper column from a “senior writer” I’ve ever seen in print. That’s quite a feat.

Brochu writes:

Someone really needs to put some duct tape over Allen West’s mouth.

Not only is the man embarrassing himself as an American, and as a military veteran who supposedly fought for the U.S. principles of freedom and equality, but for an elected leader to spout the kind of anti-Muslim invective constantly streaming from West’s mouth is an embarrassment to our country.

Someone needs to bind Brochu’s fingers with duct tape to prevent her from further assaulting the art of writing a balanced sentence, to say nothing of her deliberate obtuseness with regard to fact.

It’s also rather amusing that Brochu didn’t link to or quote West’s remarks in her piece. Don’t you think referencing his actual remarks would have helped her readers? She seemed too preoccupied with her rage to bother with due diligence.

How exactly is West an embarrassment to our country? Brochu doesn’t say; she manages to write seven paragraphs of absolute nothing.

We don’t need to fear those who worship Islam, Congressman. We need to fear bomb-strapped radicals who use their religion as an excuse to inflict their hate, and more often than you’ll ever understand, there’s a big difference between the two. Just as there’s a difference between the Timothy McVeighs of the world who would twist the teachings of Christianity to suit their evil tendencies.

Did Brochu actually do any research before publishing her piece? What has she been doing these “20+ years in journalism?” A simple Google search yields the truth: McVeigh was not a Christian. “Science is my religion,” wrote McVeigh.

West doesn’t get that, and why should he? Too many close-minded apologists are celebrating him as a hero for feeding into their own fears …

Just as too many close-minded partisans perverting the practice of journalism celebrate their own uneducated, anti-Christian, bigoted missives as fact thereby reinforcing their perceived stereotypes. ...

You tell 'er, Dana. It's really a shame when you can't tell between a Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell rant from a piece in a major newspaper.

P.S. Isn't it supposed to be closeD-minded?

Liberal Media Bias: Is There Anything the NY Times Gets Right?

It's bad enough NY Times lets editorialists like Paul Krugman rant hypocritically about Republicans being against science, or that Frank (Ain't That) Rich and Moron (oh sorry, Maureen) Dowd have free reign to write their own nonsensical screeds. But the bigger problem is that their news writers also inhabit a fact-deficient leftist bubble. 

Mona Charen has an article out today aptly called "Don't Confuse Us With Facts; We're The New York Times". She writes in part:

An Aug. 31, 2011, story by Al Baker covers a federal judge's ruling that a case challenging the New York Police Department's, NYPD, "stop and frisk" policy can go forward. But the story is so one-sided that it practically topples over as you're reading it.

The suit was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR, a leftist outfit that sued Reagan over Grenada and El Salvador, represented performance artist Karen Finley in a suit against the National Endowment for the Arts, represented a Palestinian "immigrant activist," and so forth. The New York Times naturally omits this history. The suit alleges that the NYPD's policy is based "not on reasonable suspicion of individuals but on racial profiling."

The judge (who sounds like she might have done a stint at the CCR during some time in her career), declined to dismiss the case, saying, "This case presents an issue of great public concern. Writ large, that issue is the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos who become entangled in our criminal justice system, as compared to Caucasians." Note the passive voice. Like flies in a spider's web, they become "entangled" in the criminal justice system.

The New York Times' story then duly repeats statistics offered by the CCR's Assistant Legal Director, Christopher Dunn. "In 2010, city officers made more street stops — 601,055 — than in any previous 12-month period." Proving what exactly? The story editorializes: "As a practical matter, the stops display a measurable racial disparity: black and Hispanic people generally represent more than 85 percent of those stopped by the police, though their combined populations make up a small share of the city's racial composition." ...

With the exception of the glancing reference to Kelly's explanation, The New York Times never provides the most relevant statistics regarding minorities and violent crime, which concern not the percentage of blacks or Hispanics in the population, but the percentage of those who commit violent crimes. City Journal's Heather MacDonald supplied them:

"Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city's population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city's population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies."

So I guess the CCR and its stenographers at the NYT are right: There is a disproportionate amount of blacks and Hispanics being stopped than Caucasians -- Too many whites are being stopped and too few blacks and Hispanics are.

But as liberals whose brains have been smashed in by the PC hammer, they get the facts bass-ackwards.

Kind of how they get it completely bass-ackwards with the tax burden in this country. While the NY Times propagates the Democrat lie that "the rich" pay disproportionately too little income tax at the expense of "the poor", the inconvenient truth is the complete opposite.

And also kind of how they completely get the whole "Islamophobia" thing 180 degrees wrong. While the NY Times propagates the Democrat lie that Muslims in America are experiencing disproportionately high instances of hate crimes, the inconvenient truth is that -- even though virtually every terrorist act in the past decade has been committed or attempted by Muslims -- they have a disproportionately low percentage of bias crimes. It is, rather, American Jews who suffer a proportionately high level of hate crimes, which, in fact, are committed quite regularly by American Muslims. Go figure!)

Notice a trend? If you do, and you happen to be a NY Times subscriber, I would suggest demanding your money back. If only journalistic malpractice was an actionable offense ...

 

Pic of the Day (5/10/11): Vindication

10 Leftists Who Need Condolences on the Death of their Hero Osama bin Laden

This compilation from Megan Fox at the News Real blog is great!

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Sets the Left Straight on the Killing of bin Laden (5/2/11)

I don't know about you but I've spent way too much time and, unfortunately, wasted effort taking on giddy Obama-worshipers who, like Obama himself have yet to give the Bush administration one shred of credit for the OBL capture n' kill, when the plain truth is Bush and co. deserve most of the credit. That plus the fact that the same people heaping praise on Obama were the same people demonizing Bush for implementing the very tactics that Obama used to catch bin Laden.

The Great One did his share, coming right out the gate swinging on his Monday evening show. Here are two hours from condensed into 38 minutes. Obama and the left have been shameful; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been vindicated. And neither Mark, nor I, is going to let any WOT-protesting leftist forget it.

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

Download clip here

Download clip here

 

OBL's Death a Victory for the Adults

C. Edmund Wright at American Thinker spells it out well:

To sum it up, everything we as conservatives believe about our country's defense, the War on Terror, interrogation, special ops / black ops, Gitmo, and the realities of the world was validated. Our ideas won. Our tactics won. An enemy we never hesitated to call out was killed.

Everything liberals believe about the same was defeated. They are trying to take credit for a win in a war they never acknowledged with tactics they openly hate. With a childish liberal in the White House, that may not be evident to much of the country at the moment. But I predict it will be. Facts are facts. The adults won. The kids were along for the ride kicking and screaming. ...

Yup. How's that for a shot between the eyes?

Related reading: The Credit Obama Deserves (and Doesn't) for Killing Osama - Ben Shapiro at FrontPage.

There are also certain events for which Obama does not deserve credit. It was Bush-era intelligence that led to Bin Laden’s death, gathered via methods Obama ripped time and time again, and which led to threats of prosecution for those who gathered it; it was Bush-era institutions like Guantanamo Bay, which Obama attempted to shut down, that allowed such intelligence to be gathered. It was the U.S. military that planned and operated this operation, not the White House. It was Bush who initiated drone strikes in Pakistan; Obama wisely followed course and upped the ante. Yet Obama mentioned Bush only once in speech, and there it was merely to cite him in support of the proposition that America is not at war with Islam.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Every Liberal Happy About the bin Laden Killing

Melissa Clothier says it well in this article at Red State:

Liberals don’t believe any of their own ideological garbage enough to actually live it. They just believe it enough to try to make your life hard by making you live it.

If they really believed their pap, they’d be crying tears for Osama Bin Laden. They’d be pining away for the injustice. They’d weep for the rule of international law and Geneva conventions that were violated. They would be wearing their pink shirts in front of the White House and yanking out their boobies in outraged protest at the gross violation of a sovereign nation’s borders.

But they don’t believe it. And they’re not crying. And those lack of tears tell you everything you need to know about the emptiness of the left’s ideology and rhetoric. It’s useful for political purposes. It’s useful to beat up Republicans. ...

Yup.

 

Liberal Media Bias: Earth Day Rocks, Easter Sucks

Here's a sympathetic shout out to my Christian readers. NewsBusters reports on the mainstream DBF* media's 2010 coverage of the two holidays which occur this week: Easter and Earth Day. The former is 2000 years old and is the most important holiday for Christians. The latter is only 41 years old and was created by radical Lenin-worshiping socialists who have amassed power, fame, and wealth perpetuating the myth that capitalism and the United States are the biggest threats to the survival of the planet.

According to NB contributor Erin Brown, in 2010:

Media Undermine Christian Holiday: Nearly two thirds of all stories about Easter were negative (22 out of 34).

Easter Used to Attack Catholic Church: Ninety-one percent of the negative Easter stories were about the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

Love That Mother Nature: 100 percent of Earth Day stories were positive.

Consider these glowing teases or stories about the left's favorite holiday:

"[T]his is Earth Day, the 40th anniversary, in fact, of what's considered the birth of the modern environmental movement. ... On this Earth Day there was this item in the news today, a way to remind us all to take a fresh look at something we look down and see just about every day: cigarette butts. Not only are they the most common form of litter, they are filled with toxins, every one of them that can leach out into the environment and make their way into drinking water supplies and pets, among other things." -- Brian Williams, NBC "Nightly News"

"Today, Earth Day turned 40, and a new CBS News poll shows that many Americans have big concerns about the future of our planet. Nearly half expect the environment to be in worse shape for the next generation." -- Maggie Rodriguez, CBS "Evening News"

Awwww. Sing it, everyone, "Kum-ba-yah my Gaia. Kum-ba-yah ..."

Contrast those with:

"On this Easter Sunday, an unusual statement from a Vatican official in defense of the pope, Pope Benedict XVI who has been accused of not doing enough to address charges of sexual abuse in the church." -- Russ Mitchell, CBS "Evening News"

Unbelievable. What's next, something like, "On this first night of Passover, Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu has been accused of not doing enough to address the senseless killings of Palestinian children"? Maybe.

This one takes the cake:

"Coming up next, the apocalyptic Christian militia jailed for plotting war against the government." -- Dan Harris, ABC "World News Sunday"

Huh? We have millions upon millions of radical Muslims hell-bent on eradicating Western civilization and imposing Sharia law worldwide (which of course the DBF media has been ignoring or dismissing for years) and ABC News does a story on some obscure Christian militia?

Lots more where that came from.

*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

A War Gone Missing

Peter Heck at American Thinker notices the mainstream media has focused on everything under the sun this past week -- except a certain war President Hope&Change started in Libya.

I'm hoping someone can help me.  I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing.  I've looked for it on all the major networks and cable outlets (excepting Fox News), as well as all the major newspapers.  Although I've found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama's Libyan War is officially missing in action. ...

In Iraq they trumpeted every death, every setback, every struggle as part of their ongoing effort to defeat President Bush. But now, confronted with the perfect example of American presidential ineptitude, a flailing Commander-in-Chief leading a confused, bizarre military operation with no real purpose, they wag the dog.

And though flagrant media bias comes as no surprise, this sin of omission is particularly galling given the indignant drumbeat of negativity that defined their coverage of previous military conflicts. It is the clearest example yet of how desperate the leftist media is to get President Obama re-elected. ...