The Olbermann Conspiracy: Replacing a Liberal with a Socialist?

Yeah, I'm as happy to see Keith Olbermann go as the next guy, but - at the risk of sounding as crazy as, oh, any host of any MSNBC program - I think it's pretty obvious that the long arm of the Obama administration was at work here.

Let's connect some dots:

* The Comcast-NBC/Universal merger/sale just recently approved by a heavily politicized, Democratic-tilting FCC
** Obama names GE (parent company of NBC/Universal) Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt to head his "economic advisory panel" (because talking about creating jobs for six months is so much easier than actually doing something to create jobs)
*** Keith Olbermann fired by MSNBC

Now why would the Obama administration want to lose Olbermann, who's been one of the most outspoken and staunchest supporters of the liberal agenda? The charitable explanation is that Barack Obama realized he isn't exactly being helped by the support of an incoherent blowhard, whose rhetoric leaned "hateful", and was mocked by more people than he was actually viewed by.

But the charitable explanation is oft not the correct one; it's the one which appeals to our sense of reason and fair play, very little of which has been in evidence during the Obama administration.

So why the change? Professor Jacobson gives us a clue:

MSNBC is replacing Keith Olbermann in the 8 p.m. slot with Lawrence O'Donnell, who only recently moved to the 10 p.m. slot, and now will be the face of MSNBC.

As hard as it is to imagine things getting worse at MSNBC, O'Donnell takes MSNBC to a new level of attack mode. For whatever else he was, Olbermann could be very funny.

O'Donnell has all of Olbermann's mean streak, without the sense of humor.

The Professor has a link to his favorite O'Donnell meltdown clip, this for me is the most revealing, where Lawrence confesses his true political affiliation - one that puts him squarely in line with President Obama:




Here's the money quote:

I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay?
However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate. Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate, okay?...You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts...The only way, the only way you have a chairman Barney Frank, there's only one way, that's by electing Blue Dogs. It's the only way. That's the only way you have a Speaker Pelosi."

So how do you push socialism on to an American public hostile to the concept? By nominating/electing Democrats in conservative districts that will walk the moderate line, but will still vote the party line.

And that's how Obama achieved socialism's biggest victory in American history: ObamaCare.

MSNBC is no longer fronted by a man who would (only) occasionally give a nod towards journalistic standards, American exceptionalism, and the American ideal, but instead by an unrepentant socialist who will use his airtime to attempt to dupe Americans into thinking Obama's policies and party members are all about "moderation", when in fact it is all about achieving the European social welfare model in the United States.

Ironic that Olbermann becomes a victim of the very conspiracy theories he would espouse; even more ironic that he has gotten the boot for not being far enough to the left.

Maybe the scales will fall from his eyes and he will do a "Dick Morris", migrating to the Right.

Maybe. And maybe if I stand on my head, fireworks will shoot out of my ass....

Child Porn: The Latest Offering By The Liberal Media

The New York Post's television critic par excellence, Linda Stasi, notes where you can find the following acts of depravity televised under the guise of "artsy" drama:

Chicago, a 17-year-old boy ducks into the back room of a store to have sex with his male Muslim boss -- while the boy's brother is getting oral sex from a slutty teen girl in a neighbor's house. ("Shameless" on Showtime.)

In Westchester, an 11-year-old opens her legs à la Sharon Stone, and places her fingers under her nightgown to masturbate. ("Mad Men" on AMC.)

And in (is that Baltimore?), a 17-year-old boy spends nearly a half-hour of a 40-minute show naked (albeit with naughty bits not showing), urinates on his face, on his feet, and almost in his underwear while fully aroused. Then, 28 minutes into this family entertainment, he walks down the street butt-naked with his backside on parade. ("Skins" on MTV.)

The takeover of the media by the far left has had greater consequences that their clumsy attempts to influence national elections by distorting the news; they've now allowed themselves to indulge in full-fledged sexual depravity under the guise of "edgy", and "artsy".

It's the same excuse that they use to justify their hateful outbursts against religion: An image of Jesus Christ pickled in a jar of urine is just "art", man, and you're the barbarian for not being sophisticated enough to appreciate it!

We let them get away with that, and look what they've moved on to...

Back to Linda Stasi:

I've been screaming since last season that artsy TV has become the go-to place for child sexploitation -- much to the annoyance of the TV execs, who called me "prudish."

Prudish? These scenes involved minors, and their parents should be put in jail for letting (forcing?) their kids to participate in nearly-kiddie-porn TV. Who is protecting these kids? Answer: No one. The adults involved are one step above child sex traffickers. Sure, MTV is clearly worried -- now -- but panicked? No.

Why should they be? We've allowed them to use the excuse of "artistic freedom" as a virtual human shield to protect their deepening perversions, and they have no reason to fear pushing the envelope further.

What's next? Rape broadcast live, as performance art?

This needs to stop. We are not talking about censoring "art" here, just stopping these cable networks from airing child pornography under the name of art. It's easily definable, and easily squelched: Just a threat of a million-dollar plus fine, jail time for the producers, and criminal charges for the parents involved should make these folks think twice before allowing minors to perform sex acts (or using adult actors to simulate minors performing sex acts)before an audience of drooling leches and approving liberals...

Hillary Clinton and Helen Thomas: Seperated at Birth?

Sorry to spoil your supper....but the ugly on these two goes way on deep to the inside....and how similar these two harpies look...

First Hillary, in a photo taken earlier this week, toasting Chinese president and gulag master Hu Jintao :

And here's Helen, furiously plotting the next slander she intends to perpetrate against the Jews:

Almost sisters...not just of body, but of mind and soul as well....

The Wages of Appeasement...

...come due, and the French are now being justly rewarded for their years of cheese-eating, surrender-monkey antics. Although their behavior had changed a bit for the better lately, especially since "Le Grande Poulet", Jacques Chirac, left office, karma is a universal inevitability.

The first act:

Dozens of furious Palestinians protested against the French foreign minister on a visit to the Gaza Strip on Friday, pelting her motorcade with eggs and narrowly missing her with a lobbed shoe.

The protesters, relatives of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons, were angry about comments Michele Alliot-Marie reportedly made the day before in support of Gilad Schalit, an Israeli soldier captured in a cross-border raid by the Islamic militant group Hamas and held in Gaza since 2006.

Protesters were waiting for Alliot-Marie as she crossed from Israel into Gaza through the Erez Crossing, lying on the road and jumping on her vehicle. Hamas police eventually dispersed those protesters, but more gathered outside a United Nations office in Gaza City that was her first stop in the Palestinian territory, and later followed her to a nearby hospital, pelting her motorcade with eggs. AP Television footage showed Alliot-Marie narrowly dodging a shoe thrown by a protester as she climbed into a jeep under heavy guard.

Schalit, the captive soldier, is an Israeli-French dual national and France has repeatedly called for his release.

And let us now direct your attention to...stage left, where Osama bin Laden, the devil's anus himself, farts fire in the general direction of the French:

al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden called on France to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in exchange for releasing French hostages being held by affiliates of the extremist group, according to a new audio message broadcast on an Arabic news channel Friday.

"The exit of your hostages out of the hands of our brothers depends on the exit of your troops from Afghanistan," bin Laden said in the message broadcast by al-Jazeera.

Bin Laden reminded the French people of President Nicolas Sarkozy's refusal in November to withdraw the French troops from Afghanistan and to negotiate with al-Qaida over the hostages.

"Your president's rejection is a result of being a hireling to America and a green light to kill the hostages ... his stand will cost you a high price on different aspects inside or outside France," he said.

Extremist groups associated with al-Qaida are holding at least seven French hostages...

Appeasement just means the croc will eat you last. But he will revel in your fear first, for it will make the feast all the more enjoyable....

A Kennedy in Connecticut?

Liberalism is a messiah-based governing philosophy; and based on Obama's machinations, magic-based as well.

So who better to serve as the magical messiah and lead the next (sigh) liberal revolution than a Kennedy?

The faithful hunt for signs in the firmament:

The late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s son, Ted Jr., is among the names being floated as potential candidates for Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s seat in 2012.

Kennedy, the middle child of the late senator and his former wife, Joan, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Lieberman’s seat, which the 23-year senator is giving up when his term ends next year. One Kennedy family friend called the 49-year-old attorney, who lives in Connecticut, a “great candidate.”

“Why wouldn’t he be interested in the seat?” said the source. “He is his father’s son.”

Kennedy, who lost a leg to cancer when he was 12, runs a New York law firm and is an activist for the disabled. His inspirational eulogy at his father’s 2009 funeral had some observers eyeing him for higher office....

Reminds me of another liberal who gave a great speech once, who had the right bona fides (in this case, elite educational pedigree and the right skin tone), and was pushed into running for higher office, despite a life lead with minimal accomplishments. And how well has that worked out?

If this Kennedy is smart, he'll realize that 2012 may just not be his year. Then again, the voters of Connecticut - being a deep shade of blue - have proven that you don't need to be smart to win their love, or their votes.

And after all - who wants to be tagged with the discrimination label for voting against a man with one leg? (of course, were it a Republican candidate, the word "cripple" would be tossed around like so many Nazi analogies...). With a built-in smear for any that oppose him that the media can apply quite "liberally" (see Obama, Barack), maybe this Kennedy can win.

Assuming, of course, guilt is not a rope that can some day wear thin...

Barack Obama & Hu Jintao: Bonded Forever...

...by the Nobel Peace Prize. I wonder if they've discussed it?

Has anyone touched on the fact that the 2009 peace laureate is entertaining the jailer of the 2010 peace laureate?”

Oh, yes.

Hu Jintao is also the jailer of many, many others who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, not to mention simple freedom.

And while this is not likely a day where Michelle Obama is ashamed to be an American, it is a day where I am ashamed of the conduct of her and her husband, as they fop and mince like two dandies in a sycophantic dance before one of the world's cruelest leaders...

Joe Lieberman was right, once....

...well, more than once. But his party - in spirit, even though they have disavowed him as an apostate for not dutifully following all the precepts - should hearken to his words, if they want to remain relevant in the 21st century. From a speech Senator Lieberman gave back in 2008:

"As a great Democratic Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."

Perhaps Barack Obama should have heeded these words before he bowed to Chinese President Hu Jintao, and offered him the pomp and circumstances of a state dinner. Perhaps too, the example of Ronald Reagan should hold a lesson for our self-besotten president:

When the 69-year-old Reagan became president, he encountered a barrage of intellectual snobbery from the European and East Coast establishments....But Reagan proved them all wrong. He became the first Cold War president to serve two terms without becoming involved in a major armed conflict, despite it being an extraordinarily unstable and volatile period in world history.

Kudos from the liberal establishment don't bring peace - just ask JFK, or Lyndon Johnson. It seems as if those whom liberal scorn - from Reagan to Lieberman to yes, George W. Bush - are the few who do understand how to keep the world a safer place.

Hint to Obama: It ain't by checking your gun at the door....


UPDATE: Lieberman, no longer needing the left, gives it to Arianna Huffington in the gut...

Barbra Streisand: A Profile In (Liberal ) Courage

Quick review of some of the statements Barbra Streisand made about George W. Bush:

"Not only is he poisoning our air and water - he's poisoning our political system as well."

The actress accused President Bush of stealing the election through family ties, arrogance and intimidation.

"....what nobody seems to be mentioning right now is that we knew that Bush's 16-word statement in the State of the Union address was false before the war even started ... but Bush was allowed to get away with it as the momentum towards war grew."

On tour:

Monday night's show at Madison Square Garden was the third stop of a 20-city jaunt across the nation..... But the night's most riveting moment came during what was perhaps the only unscripted -- and truly uncomfortable -- episode in the three-hour show.

There was Streisand, enduring a smattering of very loud jeers as she and "George Bush" -- a celebrity impersonator -- muddled through a skit that portrayed the president as a bumbling idiot.

Though most of the crowd offered polite applause during the slightly humorous routine, it got a bit too long, especially for a few in the audience who just wanted to hear Streisand sing like she had been doing for the past hour.

She wouldn't even perform at an event where Bush would be present:

Barbra Streisand pulled out of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations next month to protest against the Iraq war and George Bush's attendance, it was claimed today. The Jewish Oscar-winning actress and singer had originally accepted an invitation by Israeli President Shimon Peres to perform at a festive Jerusalem concert.

The star, who turns 69 tomorrow, pulled out of the event without giving any reason for her sudden change of heart.

But planners say the singer backed out once she understood Mr Bush was to attend the event alongside other world leaders and former statesmen including Tony Blair.

"From what we understand, when she first accepted, Streisand didn't know she would sing at an event where Bush would be involved..."

As far as the above goes, I can almost respect that, if she feels that strongly - hey, it shows more spine than Chinese piano-monkey to the despots Lang Lang ever has displayed - albeit a twisted spine. But she did show up last night at a different affair - the state dinner the Obamas threw for Chinese President Hu Jintao:

Barbra Streisand and husband James Brolin were on the guest list. The singer's connection to China? "I worked in a Chinese restaurant," she told reporters.

Did the woman who was so outraged over "the Bush wars" confront the unelected Hu over his belligerence towards Japan and Taiwan? Did the self-styled environmental activist challenge Hu over the coal-plant-per-day being brought online in China? Did Babs, who bemoaned the erosion of civil liberties under the evil regime of George W. Bush, speak of the hundreds Hu ordered slaughtered in Tienanmen square, or the millions of political prisoners that are tortured daily in the Chinese gulags?

I doubt it; she would never want to appear impolite to her hosts. And thus we see the moral courage of the liberal mindset: scream about the horror of American totalitarianism (only under Republican governance, of course) and pat yourself on the back for your bravery, but when confronted with a true despot in every sense of the word, cozy up to them, fawn over them, and act in a sychophantic manner as possible.

Cowardice, or admiration? Either way, it exposes a moral corruption in the soul of the Left, a corruption which seems to afflict the "Hollywood liberal Democratic" elite most of all....

And speaking of sychophants, here's Michelle Obama wearing a red dress - "the Chinese color for good luck" - at the state dinner for Hu. If she had any courage, she would have worn black, to mourn those Hu has killed in cold blood...

Lang Lang: Loser

Lang Lang is a Chinese pianist, and a fave of the rich limousine liberal crowd - at least those who fancy themselves as "patron of the arts". Which includes the media, of course, which praises him and themselves while knocking us:

It is often noted that Lang Lang successfully straddles two worlds – classical prodigy and rock-like "superstar", a phenomenon summed up by The Times journalist Emma Pomfret, who wrote, "I can think of no other classical artist who has achieved Lang Lang's broad appeal without dumbing down."

Lang caters to this crowd, and appears to live for the glory of playing the role of "court pianist" to the rich, famous, and politically well-connected. His lust for their approval appears to outweigh any other concerns, including the morality of his patrons. Jay Nordlinger:

Lang Lang will play for Obama and Hu. He tends to do that. He played at the Beijing Olympics. He played at Obama’s Nobel ceremony. He played at the White House event for Paul McCartney, in which McCartney made those asinine anti-Bush remarks, and Lang Lang and everybody else laughed like hyenas.

The point being:

He’d rather entertain for the gulag-masters than criticize them.

Yup, the Laogai still exist in China, and have seen anywhere from 15-27 million die within their walls. Yet Lang will be the despot's piano monkey tonight, playing desperately for him in hopes of a winning smile or nod of approval from the cruel Hu.

Lang Lang may have the love of the Left at the moment, but they are no longer ascendant, neither politically, morally, or philosophically. The regime in China will one day fall too, and Lang Lang will likely find himself in permanent exile, like others who sold their talent and souls for the momentary thrill of rubbing shoulders with power...

Chris Christie v. Chuck Schumer, Round II

...Schmuckie Schumer is f*cking with the wrong guy here, and he's looking stupider every day (if such a thing is possible). Yesterday, he blasted Chris Christie’s decision to cancel the insanely expensive ARC tunnel as “one of the most shortsighted in New York’s history" as he demanded that Chris Christie restart the project.

Of course, Christie works for the people of New Jersey, and not New York, and Schumer's fury is largely based on the fact that Jersey was going to get stuck with anywhere between $5-$8 billion in cost overruns, while New York would simply get additional tourists and investment-free tax revenue. A con man hates it when the target gets wise and busts the scam, hence Schumer's impotent rage.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak:

"Where was the senior senator from New York with funding alternatives to a project that was predicted to run billions over projections - all of which were to be borne by New Jersey and its taxpayers? This was a 'bi-state' project for which Senator Schumer's state and the federal government were set to pay zero, zilch, nothing for the cost overruns. We can live with the criticism while protecting taxpayers from this boondoggle, which was simply a bad deal for New Jersey."

Drewniak went further in questioning Senator's Schumer's timing and motivation in slamming Governor Christie's decision on ARC, which was made in October.

"I'll also give Senator Schumer the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't brush up on the topic before he spoke. Unless, of course, his remarks are merely political, which is always a possibility," Drewniak said.

And from Chris Christie himself:

"I'll say what I said about other senators. Their job is easy. They get to sit in front of microphones and bloviate. I've got to balance budgets...If Senator Schumer would like to tell me where he was going to get the additional $5 billion? I f he's got it - since he's such an important guy in the U.S. Senate maybe he's got it himself. If he wants to offer me $5 billion, then maybe we can have a conversation. Until that time, he should mind his manners on the other side of the Hudson River."

It will be interesting to see what kind of damage Schumer tries to inflict on New Jersey from his perch in the Senate. Ironic that, whatever damage he intends to do, he will likely get help from New Jersey Senators Lautenberg (D-Living Dead) and Menendez (D-La Raza), who would rather line the union's pocketbooks than protect the citizens of the state they claim to represent from a project will surely bankrupt New Jersey...

But a note to Schumer: Trying to intimidate Chris Christie is a waste of time. Just ask Ray Lahood...

Palestinian Flag Unfurled In Washington

The Obama Administration - the most transparent evah - makes its most unpopular moves while the nation's eyes are turned elsewhere. Remember health care reform passing on Christmas Eve?

While the national media is enthralled with the Chinese state visit, a more subtle but symbolic foreign policy change has been affected in regards to the terrorists entity known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

The PLO is now allowed, by grant of the State Department, to fly the flag of terror in Washington, DC

The Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington on Tuesday hoisted its national flag for the first time, saying it symbolized the struggle for independence.

The US State Department said the flag ceremony was approved several months ago and does not change the status of the Palestinian mission in Washington.

The statement said delegates from the State Department and Arab League Ambassador Hussein Hasouneh attended the ceremony.

"This flag symbolizes the struggle of the Palestinian people for independence," Areikat was quoted by his mission as saying....

A struggle that involves killing innocent Jewish men, women, and children, both in Israel and abroad. One must assume that the Obama administration approves of this approach, or surely he would have simply refused permission - as all of his predecessors had done - for the PLO's banner of hatred to be waved.

Coming from a man who crawls on his knees so as not to offend the Muslim world, he seems not to care much about offending anyone else, especially American Jews who have had family killed by the same folks who now hoist the PLO flag in their nation's capital. Tolerance, apparently, is only a one-way street for the Obama administration, and Jews are supposed to tolerate being killed and tolerate it being waved in their faces in Washington, DC.

And when you compare the fawning treatment Chinese communist leader Hu Jintao is currently getting from Barack Obama to the contemptuous manners he displayed before Benjamin Netanyahu ("There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage," Israel's Maariv newspaper reported), the disdain he has for both Israel and the Jews is made quite clear.

Obama is not likely to worry much, though. He's not up for re-election for almost two years, and the bulk of American Jews will likely cling to his feet anyway.

Still....not sure if this is the change most Americans were hoping for...

Chuck Schumer Blasts Chris Christie, But Forgets He Works For Jersey...

Chuck Schumer is a high-profile idiot, which suits me just fine. Not sure if this latest "Schumerism" is a slip of the tongue, or the Freudian type, as he rages against Chris Christie's decision to cancel the ARC tunnel (an additional connect between NJ & NY) due to anticipated cost overruns:

Schumer, a Democrat, also called Christie’s decision to cancel that tunnel “one of the most shortsighted in New York’s history.” Schumer’s attack on Christie’s transportation priorities and call to “get this project going again” come more than two months after the governor’s final decision to end work on the cross-Hudson tunnel.

Well, perhaps Chuckie is right. The fact that Chris Christie cancelled this boondoggle does suck for New York, as they had played Jersey (and Jon Corzine) like a chump. The tunnel was projected to cost $8.7 billion, to be split three ways: between the feds, New York, and New Jersey. But with the federal payout set to max at $3B, all the funding for the cost over-runs were to be paid for by...New Jersey. With no money in the bank, Christie wisely cancelled the project.

And while the media and the Democrats (and Chuck Schumer) howled like wounded coyotes, and while the feds dispatched Ray LaHood in a laughable attempt to intimidate Chris Christie, we discover today that...Christie was right all along:

Study shows Christie right on tunnel

...Larry Higgs of the Asbury Park Press found a study done for the Federal Transit Administration. It says underestimates were everywhere from buying real estate in New York to drilling under the Hudson. “They ranged from 12 percent to a whopping 50 percent for the actual tunnel drilling,” Higgs wrote.

The original estimate was $8.7 billion but the report said in reality the price tag was more like $14 billion. Both the Hudson River tunnel and the bore through Manhattan into a deep-cavern station under 34th Street required a 48 percent to 50 percent increase in cost estimates, the review recommended.

So let's file Schumer's rant under the anger of a con man who's been unmasked, shrieking in futile rage against those who exposed him. Schumer thought he was going to get millions in tax revenue from Jersey shoppers at no cost, and now is fuming when the auditor (Christie) busted him out.

Turns out that New York doesn't have the money either:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said earlier this week that while he supported the tunnel, the city can’t help pay for it.

Christie dismissed prospects the project would get any help from Bloomberg.

“I said if he’s really interested in the project, send me a check,” Christie said. “I have not heard anything.”

And he won't. Con men don't waste their time on the wise, they set off looking for fresh pigeons. So if Chuck Schumer comes knocking, hold onto your wallet. And if you see Chris Christie, feel free to thank him...

The Media's Power To Influence Waning, Waning...

Via The PJ Tatler:

...I’m surprised CNN published this.

Americans’ overall attitudes toward gun laws have not budged an inch in the wake of the shootings in Arizona, according to a new national poll.

CNN tries to gussy up the findings with a little spin.

But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that majority of the public favors restrictions on semi-automatic guns and high-capacity ammunition clips, as well as background checks and limits on the number of guns that can be purchased.

And that’s unchanged over the past couple of years. The MSM’s power to persuade ain’t what it used to be. MSM misreporting on Tucson hasn’t moved the gun control needle at all...

Well, the were somewhat successful in driving Sarah Palin's approval numbers down to her lowest level yet, which accomplishes...absolutely nothing, as she was unlikely to be elected president anyway, and will still remain a powerful voice in the conservative arena. More likely, the umpteenth attempt to humiliate Sarah Palin by the media will likely result in a boomerang effect, as the very middle Americans that the media is trying to influence are sickened by their non-stop assault and will be drawn to her out of sympathy and a "this could happen to me" mindset.

What's next? Claiming the "Philadelphia Strangler" was a Tea Party member and a Palin contributor? Remember, whenever you think these guys have hit bottom, remind yourself their morality is a endless dark chasm, and there is still a long, long way down...

35% of Democrats are certifiably insane. As for the rest, well...

...33-35%. That's the same number of people that seem to support the most extreme, leftist, position in any poll. Oddly enough, it's almost the same exact number of folks who define themselves as Democrats.

And here they come again - via JammieWearingFool :

A full week of leftwing insanity goes by and its thoroughly discredited, yet CNN figures it's time for a poll with leading questions about Sarah Palin and the dreaded harsh rhetoric and violent metaphors by politicians and commentators. They don't quite get the desired results.

A total of 35% thought Palin had a great deal or moderate amount to do with it, while 59% said not much or none at all.

Remember, 22% of America thought Bush planned the 9/11 attacks; among Democrats, 35% of them thought Bush knew about the attacks, while a mere 39% believed he didn't.

Call this "the insanity" factor in any public poll. Take out the registered Democrats, and then you'll get an idea what "mainstream" America really thinks about any one issue.

Of course, the converse is true as well: If the media wants to get a response in line with their prejudices and ideology, and leading questions can't get it done, why...just stack the poll with Democrats!

Seems like the media is hell-bent on using the hole they dug for themselves last week as a mere starting point for how low they intend to go...

Chris Christie: Barack Obama "Not Ready For The Job"

Sometimes, our big blowhard can be pretty subtle in his digs. In an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday, Christie explains why he isn't running, and why perhaps others shouldn't have:

WALLACE: Why not? I mean, seriously. You say you answer the questions. In what way are you not ready to be president?

CHRISTIE: Listen, I think every year you have as a governor in an executive position in a big state like New Jersey would make you better prepared to be president. And after one year as governor, I am not arrogant enough to believe that after one year as governor of New Jersey and seven years as the United States attorney that I'm ready to be president of the United States, so I'm not going to run.

WALLACE: Yes, but you know, and I heard you say it might make more sense somewhere down the line, 2016, 2020, whatever. But one of the things that Obama learned and showed us all in 2007, when it's your moment, you have got to move.

CHRISTIE: Listen, that is a decision that he made. And he's obviously was successful in winning the presidency. My view is I want to, if I ever would have run for the presidency, if I was ever to do it, I want to make sure in my heart I feel ready. And I don't think you run just because political opportunity is there. That's how we wind up with politicians who aren't ready for their jobs.

Ouch.

Otherwise, it was a piss-poor interview by Wallace, who seemed to be more Christiane Amanpour than famously "fair and balanced", essentially accusing Christie of being "uncivil" in his political dialogue by showing out-of-context clips. Christie acquitted himself nicely, as usual. That's what happens when your adversary is a former prosecutor less worried about niceties and more worried about getting the job done...

But as Wallace and the rest of the media is about to find out, the next two years will be filled with "unpleasant rhetoric", all the more so as it will be aimed at dismantling the unworkable government edifice beloved by the Democrats and the mainstream media...

Israeli Forest Fire Caused By...Environmentalists?

Remember the massive forest fire in Israel's Camel Forest this past December, that raged out of control for days, burning over 12,000 acres and killing 42 people? Well, behaving much as the mainstream media and the American Left after the Jared Loughner shootings, the climate-changers, Global Warmists, and Greens jumped all over the fire, even before the dead were buried, as proof of their eliminationist environmentalist theories.

Via Anorak, some of the reaction at the time:

Greenpeace wishes to emphasize that this fire is a direct expression of the effects of climate change and global warming which threaten us all. Climate change is already here and it is taking a heavy human toll!

Israel must take this warning sign seriously and take immediate measures in order to eradicate the effects of climate change. Israel must cancel its plans to construct another coal plant, reduce use of fossil fuels, and realize that we are dealing with an international struggle.

More leftist trash-talk:

“This fire had a a strength we’ve never seen before. We have to link it to global warming,” Yisrael Tauber, a forest manager for the Jewish National Fund land conservation organization said.

And:

Forest Fires in Israel Confirm Climate Change Predictions

The inferno that started on December 2, 2010 and burned for four days was exactly the kind of event they had predicted, says Pe’er, and, unfortunately taste of what’s in store not just for Israel, but for the entire Mediterranean region.

Only, of course, that none of this is even remotely true. As always, the truth does comes out, and the Greens should feel red-faced, or in this case, maybe brown-faced:

The cause of this particular fire was, sadly enough, the good intentions of a participant in the Rainbow Festival that was being held at the site. For ecological reasons, she burned toilet paper she had used so as not to leave it in nature, and in normal circumstances, that would have been the thing to do. However, due to the strong winds and the unseasonable hot air, the dry grasses caught on fire immediately, and the fire spread in four different directions simultaneously.

She's not to blame, of course, because her intentions were good. Just like every liberal who wants to save the world but winds up destroying it instead, it is only her intentions that matter, and not the results of them(wait until the Left rolls that out once socialized medicine in America starts killing thousands...).

But it is reminiscent of the Loughner shootings, in that the Left tried to use a human tragedy as a propaganda tool to press their political causes and smite their ideological enemies, while the truth often implicates themselves.

But as the Left has no shame, expect to see this ugliness repeated. Fortunately, America learned a lesson from the Loughner shootings, and I believe the next attempt by the Democratic/media/liberal coalition to use a calamity to their advantage will be roundly ignored, if not despised.

And they already are beginning to wonder why no one listens to them anymore...

The Blood Libel: Sarah Palin Was Right (again)

A true story:

I was at this bar in New York, chatting up this hot Brazilian chick. I mean out-of-my-league-hot, smoldering with South American heat. The night is getting on, we've both had quite a few, we're moving closer and closer, she's running her finger up and down my chest, and then stops. And asks a question:

"Where's your cross?"

And so I reply casually, "I don't wear a cross. I'm Jewish."

The finger leaves my chest, and my Brazilian babe steps back. Almost recoils. And then:

"You're Jewish? But you...you...you killed Jesus!"

I laughed nervously. "Oh, c'mon - really?"

"Yes! Yes! The Jews killed Jesus, and you're Jewish, so you killed Jesus! You killed my saviour! I could never be with someone like you, a Jew! You have the blood of the Lord on your hands!"

A bit shocked, all I could do was stammer " But...But...It wasn't me! I wasn't even there at the time!"

It was for naught, for she abruptly turned on her heel and walked away from me.

That is a blood libel, my friends. The first, actually. And while all it cost me was what would have likely been a once-in-a-lifetime night in the sack, the true aims of the authors of blood libels such as this is much more evil than denying a Jewish boy a hot piece of Brazilian ass.

The media and the Left know what they are doing here - trying to make every conservative guilty of mass murder, and thus marginalizing the movement that will eventually strip them of power. By focusing on Sarah Palin, who they believe to be the brain of the beast, they hope to slander the entire Tea Party/constitutional government movement with a blood libel.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach explains why Sarah Palin was right to use the term, and why American Jews should be siding with her:

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices.

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

Beautiful said, and brilliantly argued. But I doubt many Jews will take Sarah's side, as they are less Jewish-Americans than Democratic Jews, their party loyalty taking precedence over the dictates of their faith, philosophy, morality, and blood.

Odd that they should foreswear all to pay fealty to a party that engages in the same practices that result in hatred and discrimination against their fellow Jews to this very day. Let's see how they Democratic Jews react when the Left - in desperate meltdown mode as they see the 2012 election turning against them - reach into the 'ol libel bar for "an oldie, but a goodie..."

Obama's "Comeback"? NOT!

A corollary to the theory posited in the previous post: If the media tells you one thing, immediately assume the opposite is true. Case in point - Obama's much-heralded "comeback", starting with the lame-duck session (where he passed the Bush tax cuts) and ending with a eulogy/pep rally in Tuscon. Via Contentions:

The latest poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows 46% of Americans approve of the job he’s doing, a two-point drop from a similar poll taken last June, while 44% disapprove. The numbers are similarly static when it comes to his handling of specific issues, from health care to Iraq to the budget deficit.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed a slightly bigger bounce in his approval ratings, with 48% of those polls approving of the job he’s doing, up from 44%. But the trend was still relatively flat from polls taken in the months heading up to the election.

The much-heralded lame-duck comeback was most notable for how low it set the bar for comebacks. Legislation passed. Period. Not overwhelmingly liberal legislation, mind you — just legislation....Extending the Bush tax cuts was among the highest priorities for conservatives. That it happened and was even defended by the administration as sound economics can hardly be counted as a liberal achievement. A real comeback will take more than a week of properly functioning government.

Obama will make a comeback when he "comes back" to the American people he claims to lead, and start governing from the center-right. In other words, there will be no comeback, just fits and starts, like a typically unreliable GM automobile.

In light of the polls, to the media and their insane storylines, I say: Don't stop,baby. Please don't stop...

Poll Shows Americans Blame Liberals For "Heated Rhetoric"

Is this a sign that nobody gives a hoot what anyone in the mainstream media says anymore, or is this evidence of a "boomerang" affect in media reporting , with every unsourced, biased attack made by the MSM resulting in a surge in public support for the opposing position?

Quinnipac polls, I merely report:

Who do you think is more responsible for using heated political rhetoric, liberals or conservatives?

Liberals 36%
Conservatives 32%
DK/NA 32%

Considering the blitzkrieg conducted by the media - while the victims lay bleeding - in an attemp to cement blame for the Arizona massacre at the feet of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and conservative Americans, this result is nothing less than shocking.

What do we read into this? That the old-school mainstream media is nothing short of irrelevant in today's information-saturated environment? Or that distrust of the media now runs so deep in the American consciousness that we are instantly, reflexively, staking out the position opposite of theirs?

Let's just say at this point, I hope the media's love affair with Barack Obama never ends....but on a more thoughtful note, Tony Blankly blames the media itself for creating the "hostile rhetoric" which they are now blaming for Jared Loughner's killing spree:

Now is the time for us all to pause, and consider how the working members of the media can live with their biased liberalism — yet not allow it to permeate their work and undercut the political dialogue and political process that is the foundation of our democracy.

Indeed, it may well be the case that the now institutional failure of the mainstream media to do its job with reasonable objectivity may itself be the cause of the incivility in political dialogue. Without an objective umpire in the political debate, the players are forced to shout louder and louder so that their interpretation of the state of play on the field can be heard by the fans. But political incivility is a topic for some future discussion. Now is the moment for the nation assembled to try to come to terms with the tragic failure of the media to report objectively about political incivility.

They're like an addict that has hit rock-bottom...the only question is whether they can wake up in time to save themselves, or if we will find the collective media one day frozen to death on a proverbial subway grate, stinking of decay and uncleanliness, as we avert our eyes and keep moving forward....

The Proper Response To The Calls For "Civility"...

- a "call", mind you, which is really a demand from liberals, Democrats, and the media that we silence all dissent of their policies, philosophies, and morality (the NERVE Sarah Palin had in defending herself from their attacks!) is laid out best in this blog post entitled My New Civility, over at Aardvarks and Asshats. This is just a taste, mind you:

No, I will not f*cking back down in my speech regarding the left. I will not back down in my views. And I will not yield the rhetorical floor to those who would rather see my views and my family destroyed in favor of their dreams. So f*ck you, lefties. F*ck your civility. F*ck your lame-ass faux outrage. F*ck your sick glee over the deaths of innocent people. And f*ck you because you proved once and for all that you are subhuman fuckwastoids from the f*ckshuttle of low orbit freef*cking with your actions this weekend.

So f*ck you, lefties. I am thorugh dealing with you after this weekend. Go to hell....

I'll say it again: The media is trying to manipulate Jared Loughner's killing spree into an American version of the Reichstag Fire. If we don't punch back twice as hard against the blood libel that is being assigned to us, we will meet the same fate as Hitler's bewildered adversaries did in 1933, when they still thought they were living in a participatory democracy...


“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule it.” ~H. L. Mencken