Well said, Rush!!!!! Read the transcript from Rush’s show below. He said what needed to be said and I couldn’t agree more!!
Rush Fights Back for Palin, O’Donnell and Other Conservatives
RUSH: Let me ask you a question, folks. Answer this question honestly: How many of you in this audience are embarrassed of Sarah Palin? How many of you are embarrassed of Carl Paladino? How many of you — or, how many of you know other conservatives, slash, Republicans who are, if maybe you’re not, how many of you are embarrassed of Sharron Angle? You know people, Snerdley, who are? So do I, is the point. I know people. I told you once, had a dinner party at my house, a couple people started railing against Palin, sounding just like they were Katie Couric, and I lost it. I literally, I never have lost it the way I lost it. I got kicked outta my own house. And I had to fly somewhere anyway, so I got a head start. I got kicked outta my own house. I got in the car and drove to the airport and got outta there, ’cause I was just flummoxed.
How many of you are embarrassed, or how many of you know people who are embarrassed, about Christine O’Donnell? You know people embarrassed by Christine O’Donnell? I do. I run into people all the time: “Can’t we do any better than that? I mean, gosh, these people don’t even know the issues, why, they really — you know, they’re nuts, these people are real kooks, I mean, they’re not even electable, they don’t come off well on TV, they don’t even know the issues.”
I mean, these people are embarrassed, responding to every criticism mounted from the Democrats in the media. I’m talking about conservatives. And I bet you know people who are embarrassed of the Tea Party in general. How many of you know people who, the Tea Party even makes ‘em nervous? And Tea Party rallies and gatherings, that even makes you nervous? “It’s kind of embarrassing, it doesn’t look like the Tea Party people are political professionals, it’s just kind of embarrassing, really wish they’ve” — I don’t know. How many of you know people that way? How many of you are that way? Well, we have a lot of people that way, and any time I encounter ‘em, I get in their faces and I throw some things back at them. I’ll give you some examples of what I throw back at them when we get back from this.
RUSH: I want to speak to those of you who are embarrassed of Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell and the Tea Party in general, Sharron Angle, maybe Carl Paladino rubs you the wrong way. You think they’re nuts, they embarrass you. I mean they’re conservatives and they’re Republicans and so are you, but you think they’re a little kooky. You don’t even think they can win. They don’t come off well on TV. I hear from people who think this a lot. I’ll tell you what I’ve started doing when people start — because when they tell me they’re incredulous, “Are you just saying this on the radio or do you really think Sarah Palin’s got it all together? Are you really not bothered by Carl? I mean, Rush, this Paladino guy has a ten-year-old daughter from an illegitimate sexual relationship. Come on, Christine O’Donnell, Rush, I mean the IRS, you really –” the people come to me with this, wondering if I’m being genuine and serious here on the radio. What I’ve started doing, I’m going to do it right here, what would happen to you because this is the point that I was making yesterday talking about the dustup that Paladino had with Fred Dicker and Nathan Deal in Georgia and a number of others, Christine O’Donnell.
All of you — and I don’t know how many it is, but you know who you are — all of you who sit out there acting holier-than-thou, saying that these Tea Party people are kooks, how would you do if suddenly your life was uncovered and plastered all over television? How would you do if cameras were following you and the express purpose was to catch you in embarrassing moments? How would you do if the media was giving you an anal exam for the express purpose of making you look like an idiot? How many of you would look like Albert Einstein? How many of you would look like Winston Churchill? How many of you would look like paragons of virtue? How many of you would look like brilliant Mensa members? How would you feel if an army of motivated people looking to destroy you was following you every moment of the day examining everything you’ve ever done, trying to find every event in your life, from junior high to the present? How many of you could withstand what these people are having done to them? And then when it was happening to you, how many of you would say to yourself, “Well, I hope people understand everybody’s got skeletons in their closet? I hope people understand the media is trying to make us look bad.”
How many of you would be hoping and praying that normal people would understand that what’s going on is not quite fair? How about you? You’ve had a couple divorces. Do you want Katie Couric talking about that on TV? Do you want Katie Couric going to your ex-spouses, finding out why your ex-spouses don’t like you? You want it all over People magazine? You want it all over the New York Times; the New York Post; the Washington Post? How about all the speeding tickets you got? You ever knocked anybody up? You got any illegitimate kids running around that you know of or don’t know of? What’s going to happen if you don’t but some woman pops up and says that you do and the media following you around can’t wait to put that out there as a possibility? What if you happen to be somebody who had to get married 30 years ago, you’re living in a loveless marriage, you had to get married because you had some little accident take place, what happens if the media following you around found out about it and everybody in your neighborhood and everybody in your town and everybody in your church found out about it? Would you not be saying, “Come on, that’s a long time ago, doesn’t say who I am today, and look, I did the right thing back then anyway.”
How many of you could withstand the Democrat Party from the White House on down going through all of your tax returns, every job that you’ve ever had? How many of you would look clean and pure as the wind-driven snow if the start looking into everything your kids have gotten into and have done? How many of you took seven years or eight years to pay off a $10,000 medical bill? How many of you have been audited by the IRS? How many of you have had it said that you tried to cheat the government? How many of you could withstand this kind of treatment yourselves? I mean it’s one thing to sit here and say that all these people are embarrassing and they’re kooks and they don’t come off well on TV and they’re unelectable. Well, how about you? ‘Cause these people are just like you, they’re just like us. How many of you have had the electricity turned off at your house because you didn’t make a payment or how many of you had the phone turned off? How many of you have gone to psychics to have your future predicted? How many of you have done any kind of thing that if anybody found out about it you’d be embarrassed as hell?
How many of you can sit there and say that not one thing has ever gone wrong in your life? How many of you can say you never wrecked a car? I don’t mean all of you. I’m talking about those of you or the people that you know who are sitting there from their lofty perch of perfection saying they’re embarrassed by Sarah Palin. And why, by the way, are you embarrassed about Sarah Palin? What do you actually know about her? And then at the end of the day, even with all that, would you say, “Yeah, I’d rather have Obama for four more years. I really would rather have Harry Reid. I really would rather have Pelosi, yeah, because I’m so embarrassed of Palin and O’Donnell and Carl Paladino. I can’t vote for ‘em, they embarrass me, if anybody found out I voted for ‘em, I couldn’t live with myself. People would be laughing at me. I’d have to say how stupid they are so people think I’m not stupid.” Okay, fine. Then I assume this means you want four more years of an assault on the American private sector and the economy. You want four or six more years of wild spending, dooming your own kids and grandkids to having any opportunity for prosperity, all because Paladino or Palin or somebody embarrasses you, they’re not electable, they’re kooks?
How many of you would even have the guts to run for office? How many of you would have the guts to go do what they’re doing rather than sit on the sideline and complain about how those who are doing it aren’t doing it the right way? You can tell I’m getting a little ticked off more and more each time I describe it because I run into these people. I don’t know what they expect my reaction to be when they tell me this. I’m supposed to agree, yeah, privately, “I know they’re a little kooky but they’re all we’ve got.” I mean I don’t like arrogance wherever I find it. Is it not the professional politician that has created this mess? Is it not the people who look good on TV and who sound good on TV and sound smart on TV and look like Ken dolls and buy hair spray and Botox by the case, is it not those people that have created the problems that we’re in? So when average, ordinary life happens people decide they don’t want to put up with the pros anymore and they want to roll their sleeves up and get involved and try to fix it, why do we demand of them standards that we do not demand of even Obama or Dingy Harry or Robert Byrd? I mean can somebody tell me what Ku Klux Klan group Carl Paladino ever belonged to? Can somebody tell me what shifty land deal Harry Reid made gazillions of dollars on exists in the Republican Party? Somebody give one.
Can you tell me where the equivalent to Harry Reid is in the Tea Party? Where is it? Where is the equivalent to Pelosi? Where is the equivalent to Barack Obama? Where is it? See, what doesn’t compute for me is the vitriol I hear from people describing Democrats destroying the country. People say this to me: “Rush, they’re ruining the country, they’re destroying the country.” Right, but we prefer that to Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell ’cause they just embarrass us, they’re kooky. Where’s the equivalent to either of the Clintons in the Tea Party? I thought we wanted people in Washington who look like everybody else in America. I thought we want people in Washington who have had negative encounters with the government, the bureaucracy, the oppressive elements of this regime so they can relate to it and stop it. I thought we want people in Washington who really want a flat tax or a FairTax and are not concerned with the power they’d be giving up in getting rid of the current progressive tax. I thought that’s what we wanted. If you couple this, what I’m saying now, with the monologue of yesterday, folks, it’s serious.
If you think the Republicans winning the House in November ends Obama, I beg you, think again. It only just begins. The real battle just begins. Because if you think the things they’re saying about Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin and Carl Paladino, et al, if you think the things they’re saying about ‘em now embarrass you, you wait until they’re elected, if they are, see what they say about them and then see how touch it’s going to be for you and your perfection, your flawless life to sit there and continue to stand with them and support them. People who have never made wrong decisions have never made a decision. People who have never made mistakes have not lived. I want people who have lived lives, who have made mistakes, don’t care who knows it, they’ve learned from them, they’ve made amends, and they have moved on with their lives. I’m tired, frankly, of Republicans throwing candidates under the bus for not being the political equivalent of Mother Teresa or not being professional enough to get elected. I really lose my patience with abject neophytes who don’t understand the first thing about politics, criticizing people for getting involved and trying to improve what is a terrible situation in this country, people who wouldn’t lift a finger to do it themselves.
RUSH: To Springfield, Illinois, Kathy, great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. This is a real pleasure and honor. I just wanted to tell you that I’ve been listening to you for the past many years. My mother got us turned on to you, all of us kids, but I just think you’re brilliant and I think that the tirade or whatever you want to call it that you’re on right now is just absolutely wonderful. And I just want to tell you real quick why I think I’m qualified to call you brilliant. I have a Ph.D. in humanities, and –
CALLER: — I’ve taught at Florida State, Florida A&M and some other universities and I’m married to a football coach, who was Emmitt Smith’s head coach, and I just love the way that you do not excuse the patriotic behavior of the Tea Party people, that you aren’t embarrassed by their enthusiasm and that you stand by your principles, and I love the way that you are able to analyze a political situation, you kind of distill it and hone into the heart of the matter, and that is why I keep listening to you, because you are the best at doing that.
RUSH: Well, thank you.
CALLER: I think you’re great.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it and I am passionate about it. I run into it all the time and it gets more and more frustrating each time I run into this. And then I look at John Edwards. The Democrats, the media: This man was flawless, two Americas, he had the compassion. Why, his wife, even though she had cancer, they were willing to put their family concerns aside for the country. They’re a couple of frauds. But, boy, he looked good on TV, and he didn’t embarrass anybody until the truth came out. This has been delectable. I can’t tell you the number of people I knew that thought Edwards was it and now they’ve read that book out there by Andrew Young and they find out what a total fraud this guy is. I say, “Okay, there’s one Democrat down. Now, if you can think about all of them the way you’ve learned about John Edwards, then we’ll be making progress. Think about it.”
RUSH: You know, the kind of people that we have running for office now are the exact kind of people the Founding Fathers had in mind. I’d rather have somebody who speaks his mind, not talking points, and I certainly don’t want some hypocritical crook or some destructive liberal in charge of this country any longer than necessary. It’s not complicated at all to me.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Infuriating! The media slammed Bush at every opportunity and there wasn’t a problem. Now that a reporter says something negative (and true) about Obama and the Dems, he gets fired. I hope he SUES them for every cent they have!! The MSM is such a joke.
WJLA-TV fires veteran anchor Doug McKelway, cites insubordination, misconduct
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 17, 2010
WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama.
McKelway was placed on indefinite suspension in late July after his run-in with ABC7′s news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week, the station said it was terminating his contract immediately, citing insubordination and misconduct.
Amid the ongoing BP oil spill in July, McKelway covered a Capitol Hill demonstration by environmental groups protesting the influence of oil-industry contributions to members of Congress.
In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters “largely representing far-left environmental groups.” He went on to say the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.”
After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass “cap-and-trade” legislation this year, because “the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Unbelievable!!! They called his reporting the facts ‘partisan’ because it wasn’t kissing up to Obama. Think of all the horrible, negative things that were said about Bush (whether they were the truth or not) and no one seemed to care if the reporting was biased against Bush. This drives me crazy!! I’ve never seen a president get more of a pass than this one! The MSM is disgusting!
Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama
Posted by Robert Bluey
WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. Video of the broadcast tells a different story.
Apparently facts are now “partisan.”
McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”
According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.
McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.
When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.
At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, indicated McKelway’s report crossed the line. The newspaper reported:
According to several of McKelway’s colleagues, the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators.
This is absolutely absurd. The Post’s decision to use anonymous sources to smear McKelway was bad enough, but reporter Paul Farhi also wrote a subjective description of the broadcast instead of simply stating the facts. The newspaper’s own reporters engage in flagrant partisan behavior on a daily basis.
WJLA’s station manager and news director declined to comment on the personnel matter. McKelway isn’t talking either.
Based on what we know — and discounting the questionable and anonymous sources in Farhi’s story — it appears this is a classic case of the mainstream media silencing those who report inconvenient truths about this administration. McKelway is a veteran newsman who has consistently strived for balance in reporting. Unfortunately, in a news environment like Washington, D.C, liberals don’t always like the facts. In this case, McKelway appears to have suffered the consequences.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
I am so sick of the lies and Alinsky tactics!!!
Left Admits: Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth
Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning the left’s false use of the accusation “racist” as a political tactic, saying they recognize the strategy from the teaching of left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky.
Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as “racist” for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.
Berry called the tactic an “effective strategy” and chose not to denounce it.
“As an active participant in the tea party movement, I know the movement’s motivation is about Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Deneen Borelli, a Project 21 full-time fellow who has spoken at many tea party rallies and is scheduled to speak at the “Uni-Tea” rally in Philadelphia on July 31. “Race card politics is the last-ditch effort to shift the debate away from President Obama’s harmful policies such as the government’s takeover of health care and his failure to create jobs — both of which are having an impact on his popularity. This diversion may also help Obama to try to jam through cap-and-trade legislation through Congress. It’s a grand distraction from policies and may unfortunately increase racial tensions.”
Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, “will branding the tea party ‘racist’ work?”
Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.
“This is exactly the kind of thing that has irked me all of my adult life, to put it mildly,” said Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray. “This willful and purposeful use of the race card for nothing more than political gain is toxic to race relations, and Mary Frances Berry must know that. But she evidently does not care. Based on her comment, political posturing takes primacy over whatever real issues regarding race that she might pretend are her calling cards. I have seen this all before. I find it shameful.”
Project 21 member Bob Parks added: “What’s most disturbing about this very public quote? Not only is Mary Frances Berry making this comment without fear of admonishment, and that progressives have apparently embraced and are employing these very shameful, race-baiting tactics — but Berry is likely teaching this ‘social thought’ hate to children.”
Left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky, whose tactics have been studied and followed by Barack Obama and his followers, taught his activists to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The Tea Party movement has unnerved the left and energized supporters of smaller government, causing the left to target it, as per Alinsky’s method, with bogus racism charges.
The Politico interview with Berry is available at http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/mary_frances_berry.html.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
It’s disgusting, but we knew it all along! I just don’t know how we combat such dishonesty and bias in the MSM. Our country is definitely in trouble since we can’t trust the ones who are supposed to be giving us the facts!!
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
By Jonathan Strong – The Daily Caller 07/20/2010 |
It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”
Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
We’ve been wondering the same thing…
Why Is the MSM Still Ignoring Obama’s Radical Past?
by Diana West
The first response to publicist Maria Sliwa’s e-mail queries to news organizations about whether they would like to receive a review copy of “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists” came back from a reporter at the Christian Science Monitor.
The answer was “no.” But it wasn’t just “no.” The reporter called the book by journalist-author-WABC radio host Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott — at the time embargoed and thus unread — a name for toilet paper I’d rather not print. Reflexively, Sliwa hit the delete button (thus losing the reporter’s name for posterity). But when other e-mails started coming back with similarly visceral (and even similarly scatological) responses, she started saving them, realizing the reactions themselves were a story.
And so they are. Again, these e-mails, some of which appear below, are responding to the prospect of a new book by a journalist known for groundbreaking work as the Jerusalem-based correspondent for the popular conservative news site Worldnetdaily.com. Klein was also the journalist who first put the Bill Ayers-Barack Obama story together in February 2008 — 5,000 miles from the United States.
“Ridiculous crap,” wrote John Oswald, news editor of the New York Daily News.
“Never, ever contact me again,” wrote Time Magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger.
“Absolute crap,” wrote Evelyn Leopold, former U.N. bureau chief for Reuters.
“Seriously, get a life,” wrote David Knowles, AOL’s political writer.
“This is sensational rubbish that is of no interest to any legitimate publication,” wrote Newsweek deputy editor Rana Foroohar.
Such attitudes help explain why Newsweek is on the block, and why mainstream media (MSM) in general are hurting. But the mindset itself remains mysterious. These ladies and gents of the Fourth Estate didn’t just want to ignore the Klein-Elliott book about Barack Obama’s radical ties, they wanted to denigrate it, and some quite angrily, which is an out-of-sync reaction to a book that last week debuted on the New York Times bestseller list at No. 10. Somehow, the book was personally or even existentially offensive to these MSMers’ most cherished convictions. Whether such convictions balance on a halo affixed to Barack Obama (threatened by the book’s revelations), or rest on their own sorry credentials as news professionals (ditto), or something else, I don’t know. But this rejectionist reflex, which characterized the abysmal 2008 Obama campaign coverage, is why we now have a president who poses a danger to the future of the republic.
Unfortunately, conservative media, too, are relatively AWOL on this book. Even Fox News, which has indeed hosted Klein, hasn’t built on the book’s newsiest chunks, the ones that make it stunningly clear that Obama’s radical-filled past was, as they say, merely prologue. From Obama’s participation in the socialist New Party in the mid-1990s, to his connections to communist-terrorist Bill Ayers, it’s all relevant today. How? For example, some of the same anti-American, anti-capitalist revolutionaries from those bad old days now help craft republic-changing legislation.
Take Obama’s 2009 stimulus package that launched the outraged Tea Party Movement. As the authors report, a radical group with a Marx-inspired agenda called the Apollo Alliance strongly influenced the legislation — as the group repeatedly brags at its website (apolloalliance.org), charting similarities between the stimulus bill and Apollo’s recommendations, and citing Senate House Majority Leader Harry Reid’s tribute to Apollo as an “important factor.” Among Apollo’s Leftist founders is Joel Rogers, who co-founded the socialist New Party. Jeff Jones, who co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, is the director of Apollo’s New York office. The authors further explain why it is that, as a project of the secretive Tides Center – on whose board sits Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and former member of Weather Underground’s parent group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — the Apollo Alliance’s financial sources are effectively impossible to trace.
All of this isn’t “guilt by association.” It’s association, a key to understanding how the radicalism of Obama’s past today shapes the policy dictating our future. And it cries out for further journalistic digging. Consumers of New Media – blogs, talk radio — already know some of the story, while The Manchurian President’s brisk sales guarantee a wide audience. But the MSM? Clueless. Which wouldn’t much matter if it still weren’t the case that only the MSM cover the president. Or do they cover-up the president?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
We need to stand with Israel!!! I am so sick of the world treating terrorists with respect and then turning their backs on Israel. The MSM just keeps lying and lying and lying…
Mainstream Media’s “Flotilla” Fraud
by Joel Mowbray
While the diplomatic fallout from the botched raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla this week will not be known for some time, the mainstream media already has suffered a serious blow to its credibility. As the mainstream media told the story, a freedom-loving band of peace activists were stormed by armed Israeli commandos, resulting in the deaths of at least nine passengers.
What this narrative ignores, however, is the nature of the organizers and the mission itself. The people behind the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” have a long history with terrorists, including al Qaeda. One of the primary sponsors, the Turkish IHH, were identified by the CIA as far back as 1996 as a terrorist-tied entity with links to Iran, and French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere testified that IHH played an “important role” in the failed “millennium plot” in the U.S. in late 1999.
Also missing from the mainstream media coverage was that supplies from the flotilla could have been transported from an Israeli port by truck, after inspection, but that offer was flatly rejected. The reasoning was transparent, considering that flotilla spokeswoman Greta Berlin announced last week to the Agence France Press, “This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege.”
Most tellingly, flotilla passengers were seen on Al-Jazeera last week chanting, “Khyber, Khyber,” a favorite chant of jihadists because it recalls a battle where Mohammed’s army is said to have killed large numbers of Jews.
Had the mainstream media been truly brave, outlets could have given full context, namely that the blockade of Gaza targets the Hamas government and is a joint enterprise of both Israel and Egypt.
There is no “humanitarian crisis,” as claimed by the flotilla’s propaganda, given that approximately 100 aid trucks enter Gaza every day. “Throughout the last few months,” according to the Israel Defense Forces website, “More than 1,200 tons of medicine and medical equipment, 155 tons of food, 2,900 tons of shoes and clothing and 17 million liters of diesel fuel were transferred in to the Gaza Strip.”
The “crisis” that is brewing in Gaza is Hamas’ failing political status. Worsening economic conditions—a direct result of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade—have seriously undermined Hamas’ standing. Media reports out of Gaza in recent months indicate that Hamas can’t meet its government payroll, and ordinary Gazans are on edge.
But not surprisingly, few of these facts found their way into the mainstream media’s coverage.
In a report that could well have been written by the flotilla organizers themselves, the Associated Press wrote of the “violent takeover” and “bloody predawn confrontation” that was “yet another blow to Israel’s international image, already tarnished by war crimes accusations in Gaza and its 3-year-old blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory.”
Not until the fifth paragraph does the AP even mention that the “impoverished Palestinian territory” is controlled by the “militant Hamas group.”
At least the AP acknowledged that the blockade is not a solo Israeli effort, but rather something the Jewish state has done in conjunction with its Arab neighbor Egypt. The Washington Post yesterday referred to various governments who have “demanded that Israel end its Gaza blockade.” Even though Egypt was mentioned in the story, the Post reporter neglected to note that the Arab state had been a full partner in targeting Hamas with the blockade.
Not to be outdone by others in the mainstream media, though, the New York Times spent considerable time on its website comparing the terrorist-tied angry mob that ambushed and attacked Israeli soldiers to the Holocaust survivors on the Exodus 1947 ship, who were seeking refuge in the Holy Land.
As biased as the media coverage has been, however, it is clear that Israel contributed to the advancement of the flotilla organizers’ propaganda.
No other nation wears a target on its back the way the Jewish state does. Israeli officials know their every action will be scrutinized and dissected under the media microscope, which makes their failure to plan for angry mobs greeting their soldiers as they boarded the boat simply mystifying. Even most Israelis believe that the situation should have been handled differently.
Israel’s inability to deal effectively with a double standard, however, does not excuse the existence of that double standard.
Much like the narrative of Israel’s “peace-loving” enemies, the story of the mainstream media’s downfall is pretty straightforward. As the news titans have continued to disregard the truth, the general public has likewise decided to disregard them.
We face international hypocrisy’
By JPOST.COM STAFF
“This was not a ‘Love Boat’, it was a hate boat.”
“Israel won’t apologize for defending itself,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday night, as he urged the international community to stop condemning the IDF for its Monday raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.
He spoke both in Hebrew and then in English at a special press conference in his office, called to address the wave of harsh international criticism against the raid, in which nine people were killed.
“Once again Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment,” Netanyahu said.
In his conversations with international world leaders, Netanyahu said, he had asked them a basic question.
“What would you do? How would your soldiers behave in similar circumstances? In your heart, you all know the truth,” said Netanyahu.
“This might sound like an impossible plea, request or demand,” he continued, adding, “Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself like any other state.”
If ships were allowed to sail to Gaza without inspection as flotilla organizers have demanded, nothing could stop Iran from sending high-level weapons to Hamas in Gaza, said Netanyahu.
Already, he said, Hamas has missiles that can hit major Israeli cities such as Ashkelon, Beersheba and even Tel Aviv. Very soon, their missiles will also be able to reach the outskirts of Jerusalem.
“Israel can not permit Iran to develop a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv,” said Netanyahu. He added that missiles could also be launched from there toward Europe.
“The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow,” he said.
Under international law, Israel had every right to intercept the ship, he said.
When it did so, he added, those on board viciously attacked the soldiers with knives and rods and in some cases they fired guns.
On the tape it is possible to hear them chanting “battle cries against the Jews,” said the prime minister. He said he regretted the loss of life, but that the soldiers had had a right to defend themselves and their country.
“This was not a love boat, this was a hate boat. These were not peace activists, there were supporters of terrorism,” he said.
Videotapes of the raid reflect these details, but for “many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until it is proven guilty. Israel is told it has a right to defend itself, but it is condemned every time it exercises that right,” said Netanyahu.
Netanyahu did not address the calls by the international community for an independent investigation into the incident, but government sources have said that Israel has no intention of complying with that demand.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
As usual, the MSM will not go after this story because it doesn’t go along with their agenda. It doesn’t matter what Obama does, they will always cover for him. It’s disgusting!!
Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’
‘It’s Valerie Plame, only bigger, a high crime and misdemeanor’
Posted: May 25, 2010
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there’s someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.
“This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.
“Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.”
“In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked.
“Absolutely,” said Morris.
The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.
Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.
But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.
“This is a pretty extraordinary charge: ‘They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,’” he said on Greta Van Susteran’s “On the Record” program on the Fox News Channel. “Look, that’s a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.
“Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law,” Rove said. “Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.
He continued, citing a third law passage: “18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. … ‘If you’ll get out, we’ll appoint you to a federal office,’ – that’s a violation of the law.”
Staffers with Sestak’s congressional office did not respond to WND requests for comment. But the congressman repeatedly confirmed that he was offered the position and refused and that any further comments would have to come from someone else.
“I’ve said all I’m going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be,” Sestak said on CNN this week. “I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I’ll let others talk about their role.”
That’s not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so “the American people can figure out whether or not he’s participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials.”
The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.
“Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.
Gibbs told the White House press corps, “Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.”
And on CBS’ “Face the Nation” he said, “I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”
But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.
According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.
The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.
“We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken,” Weich wrote in the letter.
Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.
He said in a statement to Politico, “The attorney general’s refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts.”
He’s also made a decision to raise the profile of his concerns.
“The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House,” he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice – he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on.”
Issa suggested, “Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him.”
Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have joined the chorus suggesting the White House needs to answer some questions.
Former judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said the level of the offer simply isn’t an issue.
“It wouldn’t matter if it was a job as a janitor. Offering him anything of value to get him to leave a political race is a felony, punishable by five years in jail,” he said.
The Section 600 statute states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for Bill Clinton, said offering jobs to political friends is “business as usual,” but said Obama’s promise was that “business as usual” wouldn’t continue in his White House.
“It cuts against the Obama brand,” he told the New York Times.
Ron Kaufman, who served under the first President Bush, also told the newspaper such offers are not unusual.
“But here’s the difference – the times have changed and the ethics have changed and the scrutiny has changed. This is the kind of thing people across America are mad about,” Kaufman said.
WND previously reported on the Sestak controvesy and a similar one concerning a Democrat Senate candidate in Colorado, Andrew Romanoff.
The Denver Post said Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff and “a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions.”
Romanoff at the time was challenging another major Obama supporter, Sen. Michael Bennet, for the Democratic primary for the Senate seat from Colorado. He has since won top-line position over Bennet in a coming primary.
The report said Romanoff turned down the overture, but it is “the kind of hardball tactics that have come to mark the White House’s willingness to shape key races across the country, in this case trying to remove a threat to a vulnerable senator by presenting his opponent a choice of silver or lead.”
The newspaper affirmed “several top Colorado Democrats” described the situation, even though White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, “Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration.”
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who has been monitoring the Obama administration, told WND the offer of reward for some government official’s actions raises questions of legal liability.
“There’s a federal statute and federal law seems to make clear if you offer a government official some sort of remuneration, directly or indirectly, it’s a crime,” he said.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Interesting how the media doesn’t want to mention this, isn’t it? I guess it doesn’t fit their agenda.
Man Who Murdered Pro-Life Protester Gets Life in Prison… Media Silent
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, April 22, 2010
The man who murdered pro-life advocate James Pouillon because he didn’t like his signs was sentenced to life in prison today.
For some strange reason the state-run media was mostly AWOL on this one?
The man who shot pro-life advocate James Pouillon because he was upset with the graphic abortion signs he used when protesting abortion outside a local high school has been sentenced to life in prison. Harlan Drake killed Pouillon and a local businessman in a separate killing after a family feud.
A Shiawassee County jury convicted Drake on two counts of first-degree murder in the September 2009 shootings.
Today, Shiawassee County Circuit Judge Gerald Lostracco sentenced Drake to the life sentence without parole and Drake said he was sorry to have caused so much pain for the victim of the families.
At the same time, Drake appeared frustrated in court, according to an AP report, and told the judge to “get on with this.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Sick Thinking From ‘Mainstream’ Leftists
by David Limbaugh
The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.
You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan’s Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert attendees and tea party protest attendees.
The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove’s appearance by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama’s radical buddies. Look at the tea party violence from the SEIU left.
But the majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that — isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about — even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any — beyond the fabrications.
The left wants to shut us up. Liberals say they want universal voter registration so all voices can be heard. What? They don’t even want dissenting voices among already existing voters heard. After the way they cheated and gamed the system to impose socialized medicine on an unwilling public, they’ve forfeited their credibility about promoting the people’s will — which we always knew was a ruse anyway.
The Obama left has tried to muzzle us through intimidation — as in its declaration of a false consensus on global warming, its issuing summonses to corporate executives to justify announcements that Obamacare is going to cost them dearly, Obama’s telling those of us who “created this mess” that he doesn’t want us to “do a lot of talking,” his declaring a communications war on Fox News, and on and on. Failing that, the left intends to paint us all as racists who are just a hair trigger away from committing violent acts.
With the groundwork rationale established — that conservative “hate speech” incites violence — liberals will be a step closer to using laws and regulations to emasculate or silence conservative talk radio. But their claim is a vicious, destructive, divisive lie — just like their depiction of conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, as racists.
A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s guest host Mark Davis said conservatives might not consciously be racists, but the results of their policies harm African-Americans, so it’s fair to infer they are racists. Well, under that standard, Obama is racist because he recently reversed welfare reform, which everyone agrees reduced black poverty and the black illegitimacy rate. The same thing holds for his liberal education policies that result in trapping minorities in inferior inner-city schools. The list goes on.
Yet I don’t believe leftists are racists because the effect of their policies often works to the detriment of blacks; I just think they are misguided and, after all these years of failed policies, have no moral authority to claim otherwise. Good intentions cannot trump decades of bad results.
But the more Obama forces through his unpopular agenda to dismantle America’s founding principles the more outraged the public will become and the more protests and blowback we’ll see (sans violence). These protests, in turn, will result in Obama leftists’ ratcheting up their wild accusations aimed at demonizing their conservative opponents — ordinary Americans, who at this point can be considered victims.
So we should expect more disgraceful columns from liberals, such as Frank Rich, who wrote that conservatives’ “over-the-top rage” over Obama’s policy agenda is caused by “the conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman” — not his agenda. Or Chris Matthews, who asked, “What are the tea partiers really angry about, health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman speaker of the House who pushed through major change?”
This is just sick stuff, folks, but not uncommon for leftist thinkers. We conservatives simply don’t think this way. It doesn’t compute. Yet there are scores of examples of other leftist commentators making the same claims.
Note to fellow conservatives: Please understand whom we’re up against here; otherwise we don’t have a prayer of defeating them.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries