Friday, September 30, 2011

National Review vs. Herman Cain: Reductio ad Hitlerum

Goodwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%.

Unfortunately, even professional writers sometimes stoop to the level of the worst kind of internet troll.

In an regrettable hatchet job at National Review Online entitled "Nein! Nein! Nein! (The wild world of Cainonomics)," Herman Cain is portrayed as a delusional hack with all the angry charisma of Adolf Hitler.

The oblique references the Führer are neither funny nor clever. More importantly, any legitimate criticisms of Cain's 9-9-9 tax proposal are overshadowed by Kevin Williamson's cheap shots:
...the program is marked by Mr. Cain’s most distressing hallmark: wishful thinking that borders on fantasy...

Based on my single encounter with Mr. Cain, at a meeting with National Review’s editors, I would have hesitated to hire him to run a pizza company, much less the country.
Minimizing Mr. Cain's impressive professional accomplishments does nothing to fortify Mr. Williamson's weak argument.

The folks at NRO are obviously entitled to their own opinions, but it's disappointing to see such a brazen violation of Reagan's 11th commandment against a popular conservative.

I don't know enough about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan say that I support it, but if you're looking for serious and credible discussion, skip the NRO.




Sunday, September 25, 2011

Shocking Win For Herman Cain



Allow me to quote myself:

"Great lines, great delivery, great defense of conservative principles. Cain got his mojo back."

That was my reaction to Herman Cain's performance the recent GOP debate. Republicans in Florida were impressed, too.

This from Stacy Mccain:

Cain upsets Perry at Florida straw poll
USA Today

Cain wins GOP straw poll; result could
carry weight in presidential race

Tampa Tribune

Hermain Cain wins Florida
straw poll in stunning victory

Miami Herald


Discussion: Memeorandum


UPDATE:

Our friends over at Pundit Press believe that this powerful statement earned Cain a great deal of support...



UPDATE II:


Maybe Morgan Freeman can play President Cain in a movie!


Thursday, September 22, 2011

GOP Debate 9.22.11: The Grades Are In...


There's little room for doubt. As much as it pains me to say it, professional campaigner Mitt Romney won this one. As an honorary member of the "anybody but Mitt" club, I have to say that Mitt did exactly what he needed to do in this debate, which was to look presidential.

Mitt gave smooth, polished answers. He made no mistakes. He lied convincingly about Romneycare (i.e. "nothing" changed for people in Massachusetts who were already insured). Most importantly, Romney looked like someone who could go toe-to-toe with Obama and win.

Having said all that, I wouldn't necessarily say that "Obamney" performed better than everyone else in debate. He won with the inertia of several years of campaigning -- but he didn't say anything particularly powerful, original or inspiring.

Without further ado, the grades:

Bachmann C-
Cain A-
Gingrich B+
Huntsman C+
Johnson B
Paul B
Perry D+
Romney A-
Santorum B-


Details:

Bachmann said very little that will be remembered. Her prior comments on the HPV vaccine and retardation came back to haunt her again, and her defense of those remarks was thoroughly forgettable.

Cain: Great lines, great delivery, great defense of conservative principles. Cain got his mojo back.

Gingrich: His great intellect always shines, but he debated like someone vying for a VP nod. Whose VP does he want to be?

Huntsman: I can't think of anything interesting to say about Huntsman. Can anyone?

Johnson made a bigger dent in this debate. He also demonstrated that he has a sense of humor.

Ron Paul gave several very thoughtful answers to difficult questions. I'd say this was easily his best performance in a GOP debate this year.

Rick Perry barely passed this one. One of the reasons Romney looked so good is that Perry did so badly. Perry's answers were awkward and rambling. He seemed sleep-deprived and unprepared. He said nothing profound, interesting or memorable. He defended himself poorly on the issue of in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens.

Being in the "anybody but Obamney" camp, I'd like to see Perry do better in the future. But Perry really lowered expectations in this debate.

Romney: see above.

Santorum made some good points, but did very little to stand out, aside from his very effective attack on Rick Perry for Perry's stance on in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens.


Young Adults on ObamaCare: Winning The Future?


The number of young (i.e., mostly healthy) adults with health insurance has risen by 3.5 percentage points:
The Department of Health and Human Services is trumpeting new survey results showing a huge increase in the number of young adults with health insurance as sign that [Obamacare] has been a success.

According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly one million adults under the age of 26 gained health insurance in 2011. As a result, the percentage of adults between the ages of 19 and 25 with health insurance rose from 66.1% in 2010 to 69.6 this year.

One of the major provisions of [ObamaCare] allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance program until age 26. That provision went into effect last September.
On the other hand, the percentage adults over the age 26 with health insurance decreased by almost 5 percentage points over the same period. This is a fact that our liberal counterparts at Firedoglake have not missed:
...overall that improvement has not been large enough to make up for the steady loss of insurance coverage due to high unemployment and rising insurance premiums. The percentage of Americans without insurance has continued to climb since the passage of [Obamacare] and is now at 17.4 percent among all Americans.
Let's not forget that the chain reaction of Obamacare, rising insurance premiums and rising unemployment was painfully predictable.

Let's also remember that there's no such thing as a free lunch. One commenter looks at it this way:
Of course more young people are getting health insurance - people like me are paying for it. My insurance went up 17% this year because of the provision in Obama care where young adults, up to the age of 26, can be covered by their parents plan.
This is not merely an unproven anecdotal observation:
The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010...

Employees' share of the total cost is at an all-time high, having increased from 36.8% in the first year of the MMI (2005) to 39.7% in 2011.
Unfortunately, young adults who aren't covered by their parents are particularly hard-hit by Obamacare's restriction on age rating of premiums. Mandated “rate compression” forces insurers to overprice coverage for younger individuals.

To summarize, health care costs for families (including young adults) are at an all-time high. And while more young adults now have a health insurance card to carry around, health insurance coverage for adults over the age of 26 has dropped by approximately 5 percentage points.

Is this what "Winning The Future" is supposed to look like?


ADDENDA:


The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010:

ANNUAL MEDICAL COSTS FOR FAMILY OF FOUR



Medical costs for employees and employers continue to rise steadily:

MEDICAL COSTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENT

Discussion: Memeorandum

UPDATE: Linked at The Lonely Conservative. Thanks!

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A Word to the Wise...

Or in this case, a little chart:


Hat tip: Doug Powers

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Warren Buffett and The Limbaugh Rule

I'm racking my brain trying to remember: When was Warren Buffett was elected to speak for anyone?

While refusing to put his billions where his mouth is (with a voluntary infusion of his own money to the U.S. Treasury), Buffett has lobbied relentlessly for higher taxes for financially successful Americans, many of whom hold only a tiny fraction of the wealth that Buffett enjoys.

To the best of my knowledge, Warren Buffett has never been elected to any government position, but Obama is pushing Congress to establish Buffett's punitive taxation scheme, a.k.a. the "Buffett Rule."

Can you imagine what would happen if a conservative Republican president promoted this sort of legislative gratification for his or her controversial supporters?

How about a minimum tax for the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax at all. We could call that the "Limbaugh Rule." Tax the poor! Shouldn't everyone pay his fair share?

Speaking of paying a fair share, I find it hard to imagine that George Soros feels that he's sending enough to Uncle Sam. Make it easy for him. Take a billion dollars a year until he says to stop. Call that the "Koch Brothers Tax."

When that tax has been implemented, we can move on to repeal the "Eisenhower tax cut" on the movie industry. Call that the "Instapundit Rule."

While we're at it, lets allow all taxpayers under the age of 55 to opt out of Social Security and Medicare. COMPLETELY. You can call that the "RightKlik Fairness for the Future Initiative."

Shameless partisan pandering -- apparently it's only okay if Dems do it.


Monday, September 19, 2011

NYT's Fake Conservative Admits He's a Fool

Image via blonde sagacity

Out of the closet!

Surely David Brooks must know that he confirmed his own idiot status long ago, when he admitted to a pants-leg inspired 'Bromance' with Barack Obama. Now Brooks is openly and explicitly admitting that he's a gullible fool:
I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap. I’m an Obama Sap.

When the president said the unemployed couldn’t wait 14 more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap.

...we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.

Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.

But remember, I’m a sap...

I was hoping the president would give a cynical nation something unconventional, but, as you know, I’m a sap.

Being a sap, I still believe that the president’s soul would like to do something about the country’s structural problems.

...I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one. I’m a sap.

PS: Davey still thinks Washington should be taking ever-increasing amounts of our money. And like all good Democrats, he thinks that the media are too hard on Democrats and that conservatives are too rigid and extreme.

Yes, Davey, you're still a fool. But admitting that you have a problem doesn't seem to be helping much.

Discussion at Memeorandum

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Unlikely Chicago Tribune Column: Why Obama Should Withdraw


[Kick+Me.jpg]

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The many truths in this piece have been repeated across Blogistan thousands -- if not millions -- of times since the 2008 election. By almost every measurement, historical metric, and otherwise, Barack Obama is an absolute failure as president of the United States of America.

Maybe that's why Europe still loves him so?

This piece is so seemingly unlikely in that it heralds from the Obamanation's home town of Chicago, Illinois.

Steve Chapman, writing today at the Chicago Tribune:

I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It’s not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, “Second-Term Blues,” that “their second terms did not measure up to their first.”

Obama stepping aside?

I don't think this will ever happen because this bunch -- Chief Obama and the cronies that surround him -- will never give it up. Not to mention the billion-dollar campaign surrounding the re-election effort and all of the begging hands connected at the hip to Obama's wealth-spreading schemes.

It's still quite fascinating to witness the capitulation of the left side of things these days. They were all-so-gullible in being the useful idiots for this man's socialist cause and are now collectively gnashing their teeth weeping in dismay as "their man" and the entire progressive agenda is torn apart by both the economic conditions they have created and the unsurprising backlash and subsequent national consensus on what is happening.

"What went wrong?," Team Obama, the Democrat party, leftists, socialists, Kook-Aid drinkers far and wide ask.

I'd say it's pretty obvious. Too Big of a Socialist To Fail has resolutely failed. And we are now paying the price and so is the man and his collective apparatus. We will heal but it will take some time. The debt will remain as will much of the damage done but America will have learned her lesson, if not for at least a decade or two.

Then, like a dog returning to its own vomit, we will try the easy-way-out.

More at Memeorandum.

Updated: Why not report this scathing post to AttackWatch.com?

Friday, September 16, 2011

Obama's Slo-Mo Train Wreck

Photo Credit, Associated Press; Hat Tip, Christopher Oakley

Two important notes:

1. These numbers come from two of the most important members of Obama's Media Support Team, i.e., CBS and the New York Times.

2. This poll included all adults, including adults who are unlikely to vote. Polls that include adults who are not expected to vote tend to skew favorably for Democrats.

With those caveats, Obama's bad news is probably even worse than it would appear at first glance:

"Obama’s approval rating has slipped to 43% - his lowest so far - while his disapproval rating has reached an all-time high in this poll of 50%..."

The hope came early, finally comes the change. Even apart from his job performance, Americans don't like Obama anymore:

"And for the first time, more Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama than a favorable one..."

The unfavorable opinion has surged to its current high from only 34% in January.

Discussion: Memeorandum

UPDATE: Some train wrecks are fun to watch!

Darn it, I just bought a Toyota...

Bravo Ford Motor Company:



I was shocked to see the [Ford] commercial. It is very rare to see a major American corporation take a pro–real-capitalism and anti-crony-capitalism stand and use it in their marketing. I saw this the first time on TV and it blew me away. As Milton Friedman liked to point out, business leaders tend to be against capitalism. It makes them compete and they sometimes fail. Business prefers being coddled and protected.
It expresses my view, for sure. I’m not in the market for a car, but if I were, I would not consider a GM or Chrysler, and would consider a Ford for no reason other than it stood alone and tall.

Ford is onto something here. Big time.
...feels like something more than just a sales pitch, too. The statement that America is about taking risks and enduring failure rather than expecting government to bail everyone out sounds more like a big thumb in the eye of the Obama administration, whose latest jobs bill keeps extending unemployment benefits, and which continues to propose spending billions on subsidies for businesses that can’t succeed on their own — like Solyndra.
This made my day in so many ways.
Proof:
I think this is really going to strike a nerve with the American public and just may increase Ford's sales.

Why?

Though it has been beaten out of us for decades, our independent rugged-individualist nature draws us to hate cronyism, crony capitalists and the corporate-welfare, "too big to fail" system that caters to them.

Are you listening, GM, Chrysler et al.? Next time it just may be good business to say NO to Uncle Sam.

U.S. News (emphasis added):

Sitting and looking sincere and serious, Chris says: "I wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me."

A Ford spokeswoman confirmed that Chris is an actual Ford owner and that those are his real words (the ad series is all unscripted).

According to a government report, taxpayers will lose $14 billion in the bailout.


Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Obama and the Dems "Refudiated" in New York City

Angry Weiners


The Democrats spent a massive heap of money in NYC to keep the Weiner seat, but it looks like they just got "refudiated." The Dems' huge registration advantage (3-to-1) wasn't enough to save the day.

The Dems will say this is no big deal, but they invested heavily in this race for a very good reason: This defeat is historic. The Dems have reigned supreme in this territory since 1923.


Discussion: Memeorandum

Update I:
Longtime New York City Democratic analyst Hank Sheinkopf says there is no doubt the voters were trying to send a message to the White House and Democrats should see Tuesday’s results as a bellwether for 2012.

“The Democrats said no to Obama, no to his economic plan, and no to his position on Israel,” Sheinkopf told ABC News. “It’s major smack at Democrats, a definite rejection of President Obama and it’s a warning that says if Catholics in the most blue of blue states can vote for the Republican they can do it in other states as well and the Democrats may have real trouble.”
(via ABC News)


William A. Jacobson points out that this district (NY-09) is heavily Jewish and Asian. There's no way for the Democrats to put a positive spin on that.


Update II: The LA Times puts their spin on it...
Reporting from Washington— Democrats suffered a stunning blow Tuesday as voters in New York's 9th Congressional District chose a novice Republican to replace disgraced Democrat Anthony Weiner in an election that became a referendum on President Obama.

With more than 90% of precincts reporting, Bob Turner, a retired television executive best known for producing "The Jerry Springer Show," had 53% of the vote in unofficial returns, election officials said. Democrat Dave Weprin, a state assemblyman from a politically connected family, had 46%.

Update III: The Washinton Post reports...
Turner’s victory is regarded as an upset given the Democratic history of the 9th district, which takes in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the fact that President Obama carried the seat by 11 points in 2008.

“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win.

Update IV:

Refudiatation in Nevada!

Update V: Hugh Hewitt opines...
There is no spinning this for the left, no way top dress it up as other than a complete repudiation for the president and his supporters in the Congress.

Only an incumbent who is indifferent to re-election will back Stimulus 2.0 or indulge the president's Alinskyite rhetoric, much less his pattern of anti-Israel actions.

Update VI: FAM via TOM...
This is also the ... congressional seat that was once held by far left Marxist Chuck Schumer, and even 1984 VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro.

Update VII: Via National Review...

Turner has been on the phone with John Boehner and is about to take stage. Here’s one of the signs among the crowd:

It says “Mazel tov, Bob”.


Update VIII:
NY1 TV says Dems did very well in local races in contrast to Congressional race, more proof the NY-09 race had national implications.

Update IX:

Do you hear that? It's the sound of crickets at liberal Daily Kos.

Update X:


Update XI:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee...

"In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that."

Wow! What a massive lie. The district is D+5 with a 3:1 registration advantage for Democrats. The district most certainly supported Obama "to begin with" in 2008 when the voters gave Obama an easy double digit win (55%-44% for Barack Obama over John McCain).

Update XII: Keith Koffler via Pundette...
In 2010, a bad year for Democrats, Weiner defeated Turner by 20 points. The wave of anger at the president and his policies that brought about Republican control of the House seems even more intense today.

Update XIII: Linked at Adrienne's Corner. Thanks!

Saturday, September 10, 2011

THEY Will Never Forget.


This is still my favorite post-9/11 cartoon.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Government Programs for $1,000


A: This government program is worse than a Ponzi scheme, chain letter or pyramid scheme.

Q: What is Social Security?


Shikha Dalmia explains.


UPDATE:

This is so simple, even Chris Matthews understands:




Skyline

Monday, September 5, 2011

Jimmy Hoffa Calls for Violence Against Tea Party: "Let's Take These Son of Bitches Out"


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FAuGjeZ5gPw/TmU8B3Msu8I/AAAAAAAAFR0/ax8nw7Uh9Ic/s1600/6a00d8342adfcf53ef011570587a69970b-800wi.jpg
Image: Jimmy Hoffa Jr. and Barack Obama


Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

I saw the headline at Drudge today and frankly, the first thing I thought to myself was, "Jimmy Hoffa?" "I thought he has been 'missing' for a couple of decades -- or three."

Wrong Jimmy Hoffa, this is junior we are talking about here; the same one that is inseparably attached to Dear Leader's hip. I guess I forgot Jimmy Hoffa junior runs the Teamsters now.

Jimmy Hoffa stumping for Obama this Labor Day, quoted at Real Clear Politics:

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

Obama addressed the crowd shortly after Hoffa.

Do you think the incendiary violent rhetoric above is the most disturbing aspect of this story? Or, do you think that Obama's appearance and speech immediately after Hoffa's violent, incendiary speech is more disturbing? I vote for the latter. By appearing with and supporting this man -- Hoffa -- Obama puts a Presidential-stamp-of-approval on Hoffa's words.

I wonder what fair-minded Americans will think about that?

Related
: If you want a crystal-clear glimpse of just how controlled the media is here in the United States -- it gives the USSR's Pravda a run for its ideological money -- read this New York Times/AP "news story" about Obama's Labor Day speech.

Not. One. Mention. Of. Jimmy. Hoffa's. Violent. Remarks.

Shocker.

Updated: Incestuous from the start, a little nugget from the past. Apparently in 2008 Obama pushed hard for ending federal oversight of the Teamsters.

From the WSJ, May, 2008:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Sen. Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has declined to take a stance on Teamsters oversight. During his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton took no action to end the special board. Democratic presidential nominees in 2000 and 2004 -- Al Gore and John Kerry -- didn't address the issue, according to Teamsters officials.
Ain't that nice. Barack Obama -- the same man that leaves no stone unturned in his quest for federal oversight over every minute aspect of our individual lives, economy, freedoms and privacy -- saw it fit to end oversight over a notorious labor group with a colorful-criminal past.

Happy Labor Day, Jimmy Hoffa.

The Tea Party says hello to your best-bud Obama, too.

Updated x2: Leslie Eastman blogged about this before me (way to go) and gets an Instalanche to boot! Leslie notes that Hoffa's speech was intended to rile up the union-thug-Detroit audience before Obama hit the stage.

Mission (not) accomplished.

Liberal Republican Traitor Scorches Earth


After sucking from warm Republican teats for 16 years, a bitter Mike Lofgren is walking way from a six-figure sinecure to impress his liberal friends by trashing conservatives with his dulcet prose:
I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future...
His primary complaint with Democrats is that they've failed to stop the Republicans. His real gripe with the GOP is that a sizable minority of that group refuse to worship with him at the alter of bloated government.

Small government seems to represent a very specific and personal threat to Lofgren:
...the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.
You'll be delighted to know that while harboring his deep seated hatred for conservative Republicans, Lofgren made $143,034.90 working for Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee in 2010. He continued raking in the cash this year. Between October of 2001 and March of 2011, Lofgren took home at least $1,239,421.91 of the taxpayers' fisc. Do you think we got enough bang for our buck?

Liberals seem to be getting their money's worth. His latest screed is jam-packed with all of the graphic contents of every left wing nut job's wettest dreams:

Tea Party -- hostage takers, mentally unstable. Reagan -- demagogue. Conservative talk radio -- rabidly ideological, belligerent. Koch Brothers -- enemies of all that is good and holy. Paul Ryan -- wants to Granny to die. Limbaugh -- shrill. Krugman -- sage. MSM -- too conservative.

One of Lofgren' most interesting accusations is that the Republican party is working feverishly to disenfranchise as many voters as possible:
...domestically, they don't want those people voting. You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals.
Curiously, Lofgren makes this unsubstantiated accusation while relentlessly decrying the ever-present nuisance of "GED level," "low-information voters" who scurry to the polls in droves to vote for the strangely seductive sock puppets of the evil, warmongering conservative Christian plutocracy.

In remarking on the Democrats' stunning defeat in 2010, Lofgren suggests that the election results were a misrepresentation of the voters' wishes:
There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.
Earth to Lofgren: You snooze, you loose.

It really is a shame that Lofgren is such a craven little fink. His writing skills are quite enviable. He could have done a lot of good with that. Maybe George Soros will make good use of him.

Mike Lofgren, you are a contemptable troll. Enjoy all the pats on the back while you're making your rounds on the liberal cocktail circuit, you slime.

By the way, Lofgren, you look a little young for retirement. Did you retire, or were you fired?

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Obama's Gitmo? Black Africans Imprisoned in Libya

Obama's War: Black men in Libya falsely accused, detained by Obama's allies without a shred of evidence...
Rebel forces and armed civilians are rounding up thousands of black Libyans and migrants from sub-Sahara Africa, accusing them of fighting for ousted strongman Moammar Gadhafi and holding them in makeshift jails across the capital.

Virtually all of the detainees say they are innocent migrant workers, and in most cases there is no evidence that they are lying. But that is not stopping the rebels from placing the men in facilities like the Gate of the Sea sports club, where about 200 detainees — all black — clustered on a soccer field this week, bunching against a high wall to avoid the scorching sun.
To paraphrase Steven Crowder: Roundin' up black guys -- That's a Peace Prize!

Young Man Dies of Infection, ABC News Blames...


Here's the ABC News Headline:

Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds

ABC's Alternate Headline:

Without Insurance, 24-year-old Dies of Toothache

Unfortunately, I'm not kidding.

First paragraph of the report:
A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care.
This is a sad reflection on "professional" journalism.

Facts missing from ABC's report:
  • The man's uncle is a rich and famous musician (Bootsy Collins)
  • The medication he "couldn't afford" cost $27
  • Free dental care is available in Cincinnati

The man's wealthy aunt is "devastated":
Collins said she intends to write to President Obama and Congress to tell them what happened to Willis.

“We have got to make a difference with our health care,” she said. “With people losing their jobs, they’re having to make serious choices – do I eat, or do I get my medicine? It’s crazy. And this is America.”
How about these headlines?
  • Young Man Dies, Leaves Daughter Fatherless After Foolish Decision to Forgo Cheap Medical Treatment
  • 18 Months After Obama Health Care Bill Becomes Law, Stupid People Are Still Dying
  • Man With Rich and Famous Uncle Flouts Doctors' Orders, Pays Ultimate Price
  • Tragic Stupidity Offers Opportunity for Activist Journalism

Peggy Joseph, are you paying attention?


Saturday, September 3, 2011

Obama's Vitriol and The Era of Antipathy

Rep. Carson and his wife Mariama with Barack Obama

By now you've probably heard excerpts of André Carson's outrageous hate speech:
Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana ... said at a [Congressional Black Caucus] event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree.”
Although not as dulcet or urbane as the original, Carson's jarring message was a fairly accurate street translation of one of Obama's most infamous statements (emphasis added):
...in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and ... when they hear ... a-, a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by — it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism ...

You go into some of these small towns in, in, Pennsylvania, a lot, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced 'em. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or ... uh, anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...
Anxiety, xenophobia, religious bigotry, racism and resistance to Obama's transformational leftist goals: to Obama's allies, these are all symptoms of the same malignant psychological disease.

From the very beginning, long before the Tea Party emerged in its current form, Obama and his friends have portrayed their opposition as a narrow-minded but dangerously destructive enemy that must be vigorously confronted, and -- if necessary -- defeated and punished:

"'I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,' Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. 'I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.'"

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

"...we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us..."



Hat tip: Proof
Related discussion: Memeorandum

Friday, September 2, 2011

Boy Meets Girl: Erick Erickson and Jamie Radtke

Superstar blogger vs. Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senate: Erick Erickson and Jamie Radtke... as ugly a breakup as I've ever seen. Tom White sums it up well:
Boy meets girl
Boy endorses girl
Boy is told he must love another man
Girl finds out, gets mad
Boy confirms cheating, blames Girl
Boy destroys girl, claims girl is not the victim.
I'm not sure the girl has been "destroyed," but point well taken.

Girl's side of the story, via The Other McCain.
Jamie Radtke on the Tammy Bruce Show.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Tar Sands: Evil

In case you didn't know, tar sands are evil. Some of Obama's best friends explain why:


Now you know. Spread the word.