The South Side

Mr. Tinkle Up My Leg Chris Matthews: “The liberals, the progressives, the reasonable people…”

Matthews & Sharpton: Obama’s Scandals Prove “Racism” and “White Supremacy” in GOP.

Well, you knew they’d get around to it eventually… 🙂

*********

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.

The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The Internal Revenue Service has identified two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office as being principally responsible for “overly aggressive” handling of requests by conservative groups for tax-exempt status, a congressional source told CNN. In a meeting on Capitol Hill, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller described the employees as being “off the reservation,” according to the source. It was not clear precisely what the alleged behavior involved. Miller said the staffers have already been disciplined, according to another source familiar with Miller’s discussions with congressional investigators.

Hey, it was essentially just two guys, and they’ve been “disciplined,” so can’t we all just move on? (Townhall)

They did it ….No! They Did it!…Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!….Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!

Confused  and Frustrated yet? 🙂

The Payoff:

Insiders with ties to the Obama administration tell The Cable that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has become the heir apparent to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon — a post at the epicenter of foreign-policy decision making and arguably more influential than secretary of state, a job for which she withdrew her candidacy last fall amid severe political pressure.

“It’s definitely happening,” a source who recently spoke with Rice told The Cable. “She is sure she is coming and so too her husband and closest friends.”

The Speech

“Now, if we’re being honest with ourselves, as you’ve studied and worked and served to become good citizens, the fact is that all too often the institutions that give structure to our society have, at times, betrayed your trust.”

“I think it’s fair to say our democracy isn’t working as well as we know it can. It could do better….Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works.”

Well, in recent days this suggested line of thinking has turned around and bit Obama on his own South Side. Let’s recap:

We have the lethal Benghazi scandal when Obama’s administration was totally unprepared for 9/11 attacks, the president went missing all night, no rescue was even attempted, Obama and pack repeatedly blamed an obscure anti-Islam video for two weeks despite knowing it was terrorism from minute one, they demoted career diplomats who asked questions. And have strung out congressional inquiries in hopes of fading interest in the smoldering scandal.

We have the IRS apologizing on a Friday, hoping to defuse a Tuesday investigative report into its attempted intimidation and successful harassment of a wide variety of conservative groups for years. Just a few over-eager, low-level number crunchers, you understand. Except, wait. Gee, it actually involved supervisors and execs lying to Congress.

That’s all against the law, of course. But the agency apologized. So, will the IRS now accept taxpayer apologies in lieu of back taxes?

Obama rushed to point out the IRS is an independent agency, which it isn’t. He called the tactics outrageous “if” the reports were true, which the Treasury agency had already admitted.

Then, Tuesday came word the FBI, in an alleged attempt to track down an old news leak, had secretly obtained telephone records for more than 100 media members. What’s wrong with that anyway? The Russian government does it all the time.

For someone who acts as if he knows everything, Harvard grad Obama certainly has admitted ignorance an awful lot in recent days.

He didn’t know there were any Benghazi scandal whistle-blowers being intimidated at the State Department. He didn’t know the IRS was harassing and intimidating opponents exactly as his local machine does back home in Chicago. And now given revelations of FBI snooping on more than 100 members of Obama’s media pack, his press pals may turn on him, for a while.

Additionally, 40 Obama White House aides still owe $333,000 in back taxes, which the IRS has not collected. But they’re not conservative.

A commander-in-chief can only admit ignorance once or twice before people ask what is he in command of anyway, besides his golf score and fundraiser schedule?

Tuesday Obama finally called the IRS report “intolerable and inexcusable.” And claimed to have ordered Treasury Secy. Jack Lew to bring any perps to justice, as he routinely does after every episode of bad news. To no particular end. Recall his promise to whack the murderers of those four Americans in Benghazi last fall, killers still wandering and plotting freely.

Meanwhile, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder ordered the FBI, which is probing news media phone calls, to investigate the IRS situation too. Holder, you’ll recall, is the fellow who squashed that old Black Panther voter intimidation probe and feigned ignorance of his own department’s deadly ‘Fast and Furious’ gun-running operation into Mexico.

Then, to not prove his innocence, Holder had Obama claim executive privilege to avoid turning over operational documents to congressional investigators.

This is a favored tactic of Obama. Remember in 2008 when published reports suggested Obama transition team members had worked with Obama pal and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on filling Obama’s vacant Senate seat? Blago is now in federal prison for attempting to sell that selection.

But an Obama team probe of the Obama team found no Obama team impropriety.What a relief that was, eh? Similarly, the Obama State Department probe of the Benghazi screw-up found some systemic problems but no one person to blame. Another relief all around.

We haven’t really had any probes of the billions in taxpayer dollars squandered on now-bankrupt green energy companies, many with connections to Obama’s top fundraisers. Probably coincidence. Chances are that investigation would end up like the FBI’s IRS probe will, with profound suggestions for bureaucratic tweaks. And that’s it.

“Unfortunately,” Obama told Ohio state grads, “you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems.”Why ever would that be?

Don’t forget the IRS is the agency expanding by 16,000 new agents to enforce ObamaCare’s thousands of new regulations. And they will prosecute a certain percentage of violators to be determined at the discretion of those IRS agents.

Now what, given the unfolding tawdry record of this Windy City gang, could possibly go wrong there? (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Mindset

Our Government, which art in Washington,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Washington,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread (food stamps, welfare, unemployment,entitlements…).
And forgive us our successes without you,
As we Don’t forgive them that disagree with us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil capitalism
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.

Amen.

(excuse the blasphemy) 🙂

Mr. Thrill Up His Leg MSDNC’s Chris Matthews on Obama (His God):“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy.”
We’ll just ignore that  Barack  wrote in his OWN book that he did weed and snorted cocaine and hung pout with radical marxists. 🙂

Now that’s “Journalism” for you…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Now this is Marketing: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/built-it-shirt

Thomas Sowell: Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focused on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”

If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

Cal Thomas: As the Obama campaign attacks Mitt Romney’s business success — and by association all who have succeeded or wish to succeed — Romney should turn the tables and attack seven principles that have made government highly ineffective.

They are:

1. High taxes. High taxes rob the productive and discourage innovation.

2. Too many regulations. Over-regulation inhibits private industry from performing up to its potential.

3. Overspending. When an individual is in debt, he or she aims to spend less until the family budget is in balance. When government spends more than it takes in, it creates an addiction and burdens current and future citizens. Politicians won’t tell anyone “no,” so government keeps spending.

4. Foreign adventures. We cannot afford to go everywhere in hopes of promoting liberty. We should only send troops where our interests are clearly defined and an achievable outcome is likely. Countries receiving military assistance must help pay the bill.

5. Bureaucracy. There are too many people working for government. Many agencies and programs are unnecessary.

6. Health care. Government can’t make you healthy. Obamacare will not only cost more, but will reduce the quality and availability of good health care, as in the UK. A private-sector solution is preferable.

7. Ignoring the Constitution. The best habit the American government could practice is a return to the principles of that great document that set boundaries for government and removed them for its citizens.

Inspiration and perspiration are habits that usually lead to success. Government’s bad habits produce unending debt and stifle private-sector job creation. That’s the counterargument to these bad habits.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“The most effective way that the Congress could help to support the economy right now,” he said, “would be to work to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery.”–Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke

Fedspeak translation: Don’t sit there, do something.

Congress has boosted spending from its long-term average of about 20% of GDP to close to 25%, while racking up $5 trillion in debt in just three years.

Instead of cutting spending, rolling back regulations and slashing taxes — historically, the only way out of a recession — Democrats are pushing forward with tax hikes that Ernst & Young estimates will cost 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from GDP, lower wages by 1.8% and cause business investment to plunge.

Sen. Patty Murray (D): “If Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” said Murray. “Because I feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.”

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share (aka raise taxes), then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” (screw everyone unless I get my way) she said. “And I think my party, and the American people, will support that.”

Do it our way or else! That’s BY-Partisanship Democrat style.:)

Shall I repeat myself (not that a Liberal is capable of listening mind you, they aren’t):

The Top 1%  pays nearly 40% of all the Income Taxes.

50% Pay No income Taxes AT ALL.

But the “rich” aren’t paying their fair share according to the Democrats.

Facts never get in the way of a good old fashioned class hate.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year — are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich?”— Sen. Murray

Then there’s our favourite crazed attack dog, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on  the “you didn’t build it” government did:

Radio Host: “Is there a fundamental difference here, where the President believes that all positive things flow from the federal government whereas Mitt Romney and many people believe that good things flow from the private sector and that they should not be demonized and demagogued for creating jobs?”

President Obama was talking about yesterday and Romney and the Republicans well-know it, was that we all need to pull together. We all need to be working together. [No] one person, no one business owner is able to do it all by themselves. We’re all in this together and that’s the approach President Obama takes to governing, so to suggest that he said anything other than that is a distraction.

you know, they obviously have pulled themselves up by their boot straps, have put their own blood, sweat and tears into making that business successful, but that nobody’s success can be credited just to themselves.

Barf Bag, please…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

BLOG #1000

Barack Milhouse Obama-Nixon.

Talk about your Asian-Black-American Fusion!!
Obama-Nixon 2007: Obama urged Bush to consider “coming clean,” adding that ” I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”
“I think the issue of executive power and executive privilege is one that is subject to abuse and in an Obama presidency what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and the co-equal branches of government that I hope we don’t find ourselves in a situation in which we would have aides being subpoenaed for what I think everything acknowledges is some troublesome information out there,” then-Senator Barack Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2007 interview.
But when it’s the liberals hand that is caught in the cookie jar, it’s nothing…
And if so, why is Obama exercising Executive Privilege unless his gonads are caught in the Bear trap of “Fast & Furious”?
Distraction??
Loyalty to one’s cronies??
Or is there something there that would genuinely hurt him?
Executive privilege, in its definition, provides protection over communications with the president himself. The letter sent by Eric Holder requesting executive privilege does not detail a discussion with the president, but Judge Napolitano said, “The implication is there.”
The cover-up is always worse than the crime.
“Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding ‘Fast and Furious’ were confined to the Department of Justice. The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation or the cover-up that followed,” said Boehner’s press secretary Brendan Buck. “The administration has always insisted that wasn’t the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?”
“I AM NOT A CROOK!” 🙂
**********
So holding Holder in Contempt works, because he and his Boss Obama hold everyone else in contempt anyways. 🙂
The MSNBC Headline: Police Chief in Sanford, Fl was fired! Now that’s your “journalist” priority!
Oh, and Democrat Al Green wants hearings on Radical Christians: “Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing.”
Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “Here’s a chance to humiliate a distinguished member of the United States government, the attorney general- and everybody knows- close friend of the president’s. It’s a surrogate operation.”
Leadership Council’s Wade Henderson: “To do it now against Eric Holder is to ignore all the facts of the case and to use a fiction to promote this kind of political agenda and I hope that both members of the Democratic Party as well as Republicans will see this for what it is.
Four Words : ‘Scooter Libby’ and Valerie Plaime. ‘Nuff Said. 🙂
Except Chris Matthews went ever further: “Is this ethnic…
Gotta get that racism dig in. No Liberal would let anything go without it.
Now that we have our priorities straight.

Stacked up, Obama-Nixon’s whoppers would make even Bill Clinton blush. Here’s a sampling:

Lie No. 1: Obama has repeatedly claimed his white grandfather, Stanley Dunham, “fought in Patton’s army,” when he was a clerk with no combat in WWII.

Lie No. 2: Obama claimed Dunham, a communist sympathizer, signed up for duty “the day after Pearl Harbor,” when in fact he waited six months.

Lie No. 3: Obama claimed his father “fought when he got back to Kenya against tribalism and nepotism, but ultimately was blackballed from the government,” when in fact he fought against capitalism and lost his job when he advocated communism.

Lie No. 4: Obama has claimed his late mother’s health insurer refused “to pay for her treatment” for cancer while citing a “pre-existing condition,” when Cigna paid all her hospital bills and never denied payment.

Lie No. 5: Obama claimed he and a black high school friend named “Ray” were ostracized in Honolulu, when in fact the friend, Keith Kakugawa, was half-Japanese, and neither of them experienced discrimination.

Lie No. 6: Obama claimed the father of his Indonesian stepfather was killed by Dutch soldiers while fighting for Indonesian independence, when in fact the story turns out to be “a concocted myth in almost all respects,” Maraniss found.

Lie No. 7: Obama claimed his parents decided to marry in the excitement of the Selma civil-rights march of 1965 — and that he personally has “a claim on Selma” — when in fact they were married several years earlier.

Lie No. 8: Obama claimed his father got to study in the U.S. thanks to JFK’s efforts to bring “young Africans over to America,” when in fact the Kenyan airlift his father participated in occurred in 1959 under Ike.

Lie No. 9: Obama submitted a phony bio to his book publicist claiming he was “born in Kenya.”

Lie No. 10: Obama denied being a member of the socialist New Party, when a member roster of the Chicago chapter of the party lists him joining on Jan. 11, 1996.

Lie No. 11: Obama claimed he had only a passing acquaintance with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, when in fact they held a fundraiser for their Hyde Park neighbor in their living room, and years later, while Obama served in the U.S. Senate, hosted a barbecue for him in their backyard.

Lie No. 12: Obama claimed he never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright spew anti-American invectives while sitting in his pews for 20 years, when in fact Obama was moved to tears hearing Wright condemn “white folks” and the U.S. for bombing other countries and even named his second book after the sermon.

Lie No. 13: Obama claimed he got in a “big fight” with old white flame Genevieve Cook, who after seeing a black play asked “why black people were so angry all the time,” when in fact she never saw the play nor made the remark. (IBD)

Obamnesty
2010: ‘If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.'”– Obama to AZ Senator Jon Kyl.
So if you have a “work permit” that gives you “legal status” in the country then can you get a Driver’s License, and then with that Vote for a Democrat??
Naw… that would be just a happy coincidence. 🙂
Thomas Sowell: Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his executive order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year’s election.People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama executive order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody’s guess.

Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants.

Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training him, if you may be forced to fire him before a year has passed?Kicking the can down the road is a favorite exercise in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear.

Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November.

Gee, you mean it’s all about HIM! and you are just a tool to benefit HIM!? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

The DNA of Dishonesty

Another great example of the Left’s Orwellian love affair with doublespeak occurred yesterday on America Live on Fox.

The Topic same sex/gay marriage. Our little cherub of Orwell said that 80% of Americas were for “marriage” so he didn’t see the problem.

When pressed he said same sex/gay/straight, it’s all marriage so he didn’t see any distinction and neither should you.

Much like “migrant” for illegal aliens the language is dishonest and manipulative.

Did you know that the “improving” jobs figures the Media touts are dishonest at best?

Simple, really, you announce the figures have gone down on Thursday when they come out. Then before the next Thursday when the figures are revised UPWARDS you just don’t mention that and when they go down again on the next Thursday you have “growth” and “improvement”.

The fact that it has been revised UPWARDS the last 47 weeks  (59/60 weeks total) straight is totally unimportant to you if you’re liberal or Obama.

And the love fest on the Mainstream Media can continue.

Sen. Patrick Leahy: I trust that he will be Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives. It’s the Supreme Court of the United States and the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us.

Leahy suggesting that a justice voting based on their personal beliefs, against Obamacare, would be committing conservative judicial activism (aka voting against ObamaCare is “activism”).

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”-Sen Leahy.

Mind you this is the same guy who after the Citizens United case decision didn’t go the Unions way:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political ads attacking candidates, calling it the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”(politico).

And we all know THAT was partisan decision and the Liberals obsess about to this day. It’s an open would that the Democrats are constantly pouring salt in.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and to overturn the actions of the people’s elected representatives in the Congress.  I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and Committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted. (Leahy’s own website)

You mean the partisan “summits”, the legal maneuvering,The bribes and horse trading, the distortions, the “pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, the exclusion of opposition and the most partisan vote in US History???

Oh that’s right, when Liberals do it it’s “fair”. 🙂

  They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people…

You mean the 60% that has been against Obamacare since it was born?

No, he doesn’t.

According a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the Affordable Care Act mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case “on the basis of the law.” (also from his website)

This, of course comes from the Washington Post, a very “fair” and “unbiased” member of the “journalist” community.

The actual Poll: Notice the difference in the Democrats (political) – of which their are two categories and the Republicans (law)- 1 category and then you average them together and you skew the poll in your favor and proclaim it as if you weren’t manipulating people dishonestly.

The health care case: Politics and the Supreme Court

That is until Obama gets the chance to appoint more leftists to the court and tip the balance in their favor, then it will be “fair” when they can just run over the conservatives like a steam roller… 🙂

But that wouldn’t be activism though… 🙂

SPENDING

Ann Coulter: It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.”

To be Precise- “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”–Obama in Denver (gatewaypundit)

Obama: I’ve “Cleaned Up” GOP’s “Wild Debts”–My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years.

There’s even a chart!  (See Below) I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on … This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.”

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

Everybody’s keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …” On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending?

Hey — we just found out that ObamaCare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Bros. collapsed.

By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money.

That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. This, too, is called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

American Enterprise Institute: Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

So what you do is raise the baseline AFTER you’ve spend the money, blame it on your predecessor, then proclaim how little you’ve spent since then with a straight face.

Now that’s “honest” and “transparent” isn’t it.

So the fact that the Debt was 10 trillion in 2009 when you took over and now it’s approaching rapidly 16 trillion isn’t his fault because he’s been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have! 🙂

Mr Nutting: Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond. (AEI)

<<Barf bag overload>>

So we end today’s listen in Liberal dishonesty with a bit of comedy:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) on CSPAN:

“Is the thrill still there?” asked Scully.

Matthews wasn’t thrilled with the question.

“I hope that you feel satisfied that you’ve used the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right-winger I ever bump into,” Matthews responded, after defending the comment.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses the chance to talk about it,” Matthews continued.

“And usually they say ‘tingle’ which says something about their orientation, but that’s alright,” he added. Later he interjected, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I have to throw that in.”

Yeah he wouldn’t want to be “homophobic” or “bigoted” now would he! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Showtime!

One of the few times I have agreed with Sen. McCain:

“Well my position is it is a classic Schumer grandstanding use of his subcommittee,” McCain said when asked by a reporter outside his party’s policy lunch in the Capitol about Schumer’s subcommittee hearing earlier in the day on Arizona’s 2010 immigration law, SB 1070.

Arguments are in front of the Supreme Court today. So Schumer had his There-all-racists dog-and-pony show yesterday. Political theatre at it’s most grotesque.

After all, only 2 of 11 members of Upchuck’s committee (the other being “Ticked Turbin” Dick Durbin) bothered to show up for this narcissistic nakedly political dog-and-pony show.

“I agree with [former Kansas] Sen. [Bob] Dole who once said the most dangerous place in Washington to be is between Sen. Schumer and a television camera,” McCain added. “Of course, he never consulted me or [Arizona] Sen. [Jon] Kyl,” he joked.

Speaking of “UpChuck” Schumer…How much upchuck would Upchuck chuck if  Upchuck could Chuck his upchuck. 🙂

“We have a border agent killed because of Fast and Furious. We today have guides sitting on mountaintops in Arizona as drugs are smuggled up to Phoenix and distributed throughout the country. There frustration was real and understandable.”

McCain said the solution to the problem is simple: “Secure the border.”

Mind you, I will not forgive him for the Amnesty Bill of 2007. And he knows it, which is why in 2010 he ran so far to right to save his own job.
And with our incompetent former Governor, Janet Napalitano rise to her Peter-Principle heights of incompetence and the Race-Biased DOJ run by a political hack and a Labor Department run by a Pro-Illegal Hispanic we have no chance.
“Under federal law, under the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, you know, we have the Equal Protection Clause,” he added. “I knew those kinds of issues would be raised by those open-border folks that are against any enforcement. We’ve been sued on everything we’ve done from voting fraud — to stop voting fraud — to welfare fraud to going after illegal employers who compete illegally, immorally and have a competitive advantage over the honest employer. Doesn’t seem like no matter what we do, Mr. Chairman, we’re attacked for simply enforcing the law, trying to protect American citizens and jobs for Americans. … We simply wrote the bill to preempt those kinds of silly arguments and try to protect everybody’s rights.”-Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 who was railroaded out of his job by the hysterical Left.
Sen. Schumer describes state immigration laws as “counterproductive and unconstitutional.”

Because after all, The Federal Government must be Supreme in all things! And they don’t needy in any uppity States asserting their own rights!
And if the Federal Government wants to ignore any law then that’s just tough sh*t for you. Buck up and suck it up!!
Your Imperial Masters have spoken!
Do you believe individual states should have the right to make their own immigration laws and protect their borders, if they believe the federal government has failed to act, or not?

Yes, states should have that right 65%  2010: 65%
No, not up to states 31  2010: 32
(Don’t know) 4  2010: 3  (Fox)
“Illegal is a crime, not a race. It doesn’t pick out any nationality. It just so happens 90 percent of those who violated our immigration laws come from across that southern border or are Hispanic.”–Russell Pearce

Durbin asked Gallardo if SB 1070 made it easier or harder for illegal immigrants to report domestic violence or abuse of their children to law enforcement.

(State Lawmaker-Democrat) Gallardo said the bill makes it harder to report abuse, because women are fearful that if they come forward, they may be separated from their children and deported.

Can you spot the Liberal Diversions?
“I’m sure it didn’t escape notice that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to this hearing. That’s not surprising. They’re absent from this hearing just like they’ve been absent from every attempt we’ve made to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem. We need people to sit down, people on both sides of the aisle in a bi-partisan way and solve this problem. and we have been unable to find negotiating partners,” Schumer said.
It’s the Republican’s Fault!!!
If they’d only kissed our ass on Amnesty then we would not have this political dog-and-pony show!
Remember, “Bi-Partisan” in Liberal land means you do exactly what they want and there will be no partisan childishness and you won’t be to blame for not letting us do whatever we want. It’s BY-Partisan.
And the fix is in, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the decision leaving a 4-4 split on the Court that would mean the low court and the liberals win.
But she refuses to recuse herself from ObamaCare which she also worked on.
Sickening.
MORE FUN WITH KU KLUX KLAN
An unhinged Chris Matthews on Monday excoriated Republican primary voters as racist, deriding them as the “Grand Wizard crowd.”
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele (who is black BTW): Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?

MATTHEWS: Okay, I’m just saying, the far right party.

Mr “Tinkle up my Leg” was in rare form.
I guess he wasn’t invited to be on the Panel with Schumer and Durbin.
And the former Grand Wizard of The Klu Klux Clan, Sen. Robert Byrd (D) was dead.

The administration says the law, and Arizona’s approach of maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.

Obama:  The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.” (townhall)

But at least Attorney General Holder  and Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano have actually read it…NOT! 🙂
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona on a law that allows the state to require employers to verify citizenship of job applicants, the court has shown it is not opposed to giving the states some form of control over immigration policy.
So hopefully State’s Rights wins the day.
But with the fix in, I doubt it.
CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SOUTHWEST (You, those “more secure” borders):
Eighty percent of cases filed against criminal defendants in United States Magistrate Courts in fiscal year 2011 occurred in parts of the country along the U.S. border with Mexico, according to a recent Justice Department report.Of the total 71,387 cases filed in that court system between Oct. 1, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2011, 57,310 were along the southern border, the United States Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 2011 states.

Arizona accounted for the highest number of criminal defendants (23,125), followed by Southern Texas (19,453), Western Texas (10,546), New Mexico (2,913) and Southern California (1,273).  Those four regions are among the top five in the country for the number of cases filed in the Magistrate Courts. (The other is Eastern Virginia, with 3,034 cases.)

Created by Congress in 1968, Magistrate Courts handle a “considerable criminal caseload,” according to the report.  Assigned by district courts, magistrate judges preside over misdemeanor trials, conduct preliminary hearings, and enter rulings or recommended dispositions on pretrial motions.

Regions along the southwest border also accounted for the most criminal cases handled by U.S. Attorneys in FY2011.  Of all criminal cases filed in U.S. District Courts, 43.3 percent occurred in the four border states – Western Texas (7,271), Arizona (7,033), Southern Texas (6,797), Southern California (5,689) and New Mexico (3,044).

Overall, U.S. Attorneys’ offices dealt with 163,908 criminal matters during FY2011.

Immigration accounted for 41.8 percent of all criminal cases – the highest number by program category. Next came drug-related offenses, at 22.1 percent, followed by violent crime, 17.2 percent.

Gee, Mexican Drug Gangs anyone?

Although the most recent report does not mention illegal immigration, the report for FY2010 does.

“Illegal immigration provides the initial foothold with which criminal elements, including organized crime syndicates, use to engage in a myriad of illicit activities ranging from immigration document fraud and migrant smuggling to human trafficking,” the earlier report states.

“Violence along the border of the United States and Mexico has increased dramatically during recent years,” it adds. “The violence associated with Mexican drug trafficking organizations pose[s] a serious problem for law enforcement.” (CNS)

But, don’t worry, it’s more secure than it has ever been and they have made ‘significant’ progress! 🙂

THE CHURCH OF ME

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

And Church of My God is ME has come again:

“The fact is that since most of you were born, tuition and fees at America’s colleges have more than doubled,” Obama said. “And that forces students like you to take out a lot more loans, there are fewer grants, you rack up more debt. Can I get an ‘amen’?”

The students responded: “Amen!”

Obama continued: “The average student who borrows to pay for college now graduates with about $25,000 in student loan debt—that’s the average, some are more. Can I get an ‘amen’ for that?”

“Amen,” the students responded.

As mentioned in a previous blog, one of the main reasons for the higher tuition IS BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT. Since they will pay more an more in subsidies to Colleges to “keep prices low” the incentive is to raise them to new heights because the government will just pay them anyways.
But for Obama, he want 2008 back, when he was worshiped as The Savior of Mankind and the only people stupid enough to believe that are the young Liberally-educated socialists-in-training.
So the campaign strategy is Class Warfare, Appeal to the Stupid, and then everyone else is misogynist (War on Women) or a Racist if they don’t support him.
Wow! Whatta Guy!
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Media Research Center
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Truth to Tell

Super-Uber-Liberal (who I have never EVER agreed with on anything she has ever said EVER!) Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that “the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC.” 

But don’t worry, the Truth is a merely insignificant distraction to The Agenda of The Left. It’s not like they’ll actually clean up their own house. After all, calling Sarah Palin a dumb Twat and a cunt and many other gross and hateful things is merely “the Truth” in another form to the Left. 🙂

Doublethink: the capacity to believe to completely contradictory things at the same time and believe both are true!

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right…

But good luck getting anyone in the Liberal Media to REALLY push this or get them to act on it.

They can point out their own hypocrisy, it’s a curiosity, but could they ever actually take reform of it for the long term?

NO.

So Ms Powers can speak the actual truth and No one on Left will care.

Because, they won’t change.

It’s just another Leftist telling the truth, but it won’t change anything.

Much like Stephen Chu’s “European” Gas Prices comment. Or Obama comments about wanting to raising gas prices to get people to do what he wants.

Or Raul Emmanuel’s “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” it is the truth, but exposing the truth in politics doesn’t necessarily mean anything and especially on the Left it means absolutely NOTHING.

All of Obama’s 2008 pronouncements about his socialist agenda, ignored by the media.

They can tell the real truth and then continue do exactly the same things that they have been doing.

Doublethink is endemic on the Left.

They will just say it and then just move on. They don’t have the capacity for change of behavior. Why would they want to do that? 🙂

The Contraceptive Flap: A FLUKE? Sandra Fluke… 🙂

Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.

That would make the total cost for birth control pills for a student who decided to use them for all three years of law school just $324.

Also CNS did a report that they could be found within 3 blocks of the Law center for FREE!

So why is the Left so worked up? Because the truth doesn’t matter, what really matters is that they can use her “testimony” and the Limbaugh comments to bash the right’s head in and distract people from the actual truth of the economy and what the Left is REALLY doing.

Distraction is  the Left favorite tactic even for the people on the Left. That’s how you can say the truth and no one on the Left even notices and the people on the Right get all hot, the Left poo-poo’s it as “partisan” and just keeps moving to the Left.

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

And with that in mind:  The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Strikes

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. 

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s look at the Poster:

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And State Senator Barack Obama.

But like his 20 years in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright he was there but he wasn’t listening and never hear a word of it. 🙂

He learned all his Christian values in those pews but he never heard any of the Leftist/Alinsky Liberation Theology for those 20 years! 🙂

And here’s the press release:

Press Release
So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.
Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, described the Midwest Academy as a “crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical’s radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist “community organizer.”
The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press’s job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play’s run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. “You never would have known he was a politician,” says Dickler. “He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who’s a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he’s going places.” Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders. 

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?
 
The reason that Obama’s Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama’s reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life.  

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media. prefers.

But don’t expect anyone on the Left or The Mainstream Media (Ministry of Truth) to notice and even if they do, it’s just the work of extremist partisan Republicans so it is to be dismissed like the social significance of Snookie.

But HERE’s what’s really, really important: Republicans HATE WOMEN!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Labels

Before I get to the explanation, choke on this fact:

Updated numbers for the national debt are just out: It’s now $14,639,000,000,000.

When Barack Obama took the oath of office twice on Jan. 20, 2009, CBS’ amazing number cruncher Mark Knoller reports, the national debt was $10,626,000,000,000.

That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That’s the fastest increase under any president ever.

But that’s George Bush’s Fault! He made them do it! remember that. 🙂

The nation’s debt increased $4.9 trillion under President Bush too, btw. But it took him 2,648 days to do it. Obama will surpass that sum during this term. (LA times)

That’s the Republicans Fault! 🙂

It’s growing $2.95 million a minute, but don’t worry, we just need to SPEND EVEN MORE!

And it’s all those nasty, mean “Conservatives” fault!

The Buck stops with anyone but a Democrats (or “Liberal”).

The Media Research Center has a revelatory study out this morning on the vast discrepancy between the way the news networks use the “conservative” and “liberal” labels for candidates.

In the first half of this year, NBC, ABC and CBS morning and evening news shows put attached the term “conservative” to a presidential contender 62 times, while during the same period in the presidential race in 2007, “liberal” came up only three times.

Media Research Center analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from January 1 through July 31 and found 62 “conservative” labels for Republican candidates or those talked about as potential candidates. A check of the same broadcasts for the same time period in 2007 found a paltry three “liberal” labels for the Democrats running that year, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity.

In fact, reporters four years ago used the “liberal” label more freely with Republican candidates than Democrats. ABC’s Jake Tapper (World News, March 5, 2007) called Rudy Giuliani a “former big city mayor with liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.” But Democratic candidates such as Edwards and Clinton, whose views were to the left of Giuliani, were not once called “liberal” on any of the networks during the period we examined, while CBS and NBC never tagged Barack Obama as liberal.
Indeed, the most-labeled candidate this cycle is Michele Bachmann, who accounted for more than a third (23) of the ideological descriptions we tallied. On ABC’s World News on June 14, correspondent John Berman called Bachmann “one of Congress’s most conservative members.” Later that month, ABC’s Jon Karl described Bachmann as having “unyieldingly conservative views (June 26) and as an “uncompromising conservative” (June 27). Over on the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford tagged Bachmann as “unapologetically conservative” (June 26).

On the June 27 NBC Nightly News, correspondent Kelly O’Donnell said Bachmann was “known for her firebrand conservative style.” The next morning on Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked Bachmann: “Are you at all concerned that your socially conservative views, that make you very popular in Iowa, might not play as well down the road?”

Four years ago, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards espoused the most stridently liberal positions of the major Democratic candidates, but drew no liberal labels from January 1 through July 31, 2007. (Then-NBC reporter Chip Reid, however, did supply a single liberal label on the December 28, 2006 edition of Today, as Edwards prepared to announce his candidacy: “Critics say Edwards is too liberal and, with just one term in the Senate, too inexperienced.”)Viewers only heard two liberal labels for then-Senator Barack Obama, who, like Edwards, espoused strongly liberal positions as a candidate. The labels came in a single flattering story by ABC’s Jake Tapper that was aired both on the January 16, 2007 World News and the next morning’s Good Morning America: “Obama has drawn raves for presenting fairly traditional liberal views as fresh and inspiring….As for then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who led the Democratic field throughout 2007, she was also never termed a liberal. In fact, network analysts busied themselves refuting the notion. “People think she’s a liberal, even though she’s hawkish,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asserted on NBC’s Todayon January 15, 2007. (Mr. “Tingle up my Leg” himself!)

For its part, CBS failed to attach a single liberal label to the Democratic candidates during the first seven months of 2007.It’s neither inaccurate nor impolite to describe this year’s GOP candidates as “conservative” — most of them wear the label proudly. But if the networks are going to treat both sides fairly, they should have been just as ardent in pointing out the liberalism of the Democratic field that produced the most liberal President in American history.
But why would they do that? 🙂
It would be like calling Illegal Aliens…Illegal Aliens! Not “migrants”.
And Islamic terrorists and radicals…Islamic terrorists and radicals. It’s much easier and better to call the Tea Partiers terrorists than the real ones.
Gotta fear the weirdos.
Besides pin the most ardent Liberals in a corner and they’ll call themselves “Progressives” but they won’t use it except then. It’s another out for them.
Demonize your opposition.
Label the Mark of the Beast.
Begone, ye SATAN “Conservative”. 🙂
Chris Matthews on Gov. Rick Perry:  Speculating on the Texas Governor’s popularity, Matthews theorized, “Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist.” The NBC anchor then suggested sinister motives behind his supporters: “And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.'”
Now can you imagine saying that about the other guy…you know…THE LIBERAL. of course not, why would they do that…
Sunday’s (NBC) Meet the Press, substitute host Savannah Guthrie pushed the President from the left: “If the President thinks more should be done, if he thinks there should be more stimulus, why doesn’t he just go for broke? Why doesn’t he go out there and ask for it, make a case for it?”
Yeah, go for it! We’re nearly 15,000,000,000,000 in debt what the hell let’s SPEND EVEN MORE!!
Now that’s a good plan!! 😦
In contrast to her exchange with Gibbs, when Guthrie interviewed Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels minutes later, she actually discouraged Republicans from standing on principle: “…at the Republican debate the candidates were asked whether they would accept a deal in which there were $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes. And every single candidate raised their hand….does that convey a sense that Republicans are so intransigent on this issue that this problem they profess to care about, i.e. the deficit, can’t be solved?”

Daniels countered by pointing to stubbornness on the Democratic side: “Well, first, there’s tons of intransigence on the other side. The Democrats have been utterly, I’d say, not only stubborn, but cynical in their protestations that they won’t touch, they won’t, they won’t modernize or rebuild the safety net programs, and everyone knows that has to happen.”

AVILA: Deep cuts in education helped balance the budget, and the divide between rich and poor is the fourth widest in the country. Some argue that, deep in the heart of Rick Perry’s Texas, there is little heart. Jim Avila, ABC News, San Antonio. (NB)
“I know you’re an objective reporter, but I smell birtherism about this guy. His attack on Obama isn’t just policy. It’s about the nature of the person who’s President….This could be Bull Connor with a smile.”–Chris Matthews. The fact that Bull Connor was a White, Southern DEMOCRAT I’m sure was missed by this Alinsky-inspired attack.
And we all know the Mainstream media is “Objective”, don’t we? 🙂
So where are the statements about Obama’s economy, the nearly $5 Trillion in spending in less than 3 years,  the chronic  unemployment, Libya, taxes, jobs, ObamaCare, anti-business, being a SOCIALIST! etc.
Oh, sorry, that’s George Bush’s Fault! Silly me… 🙂
And what isn’t his fault is the Republicans fault. Even if they have only had one branch of Congress for 7 months it’s still there fault.
Why? because they are “CONSERVATIVES”. That’s why. And we all know they are stubborn, heartless, mean, miserly, nasty old grinchs who just wanna throw grandma off a cliff, steal candy from babies, and be racist, bible-thumping terrorists.
And we can’t have that now can we?
Vote for Me, the Democrat, because the other guy/ gal  is a “Conservative” (aka asshole)!!
Political Cartoons by Jerry HolbertPolitical Cartoons by Michael Ramirez