Sunday, March 29, 2009

Notre Dame Students Don't Want Obama

You won't find this on your network news broadcasts. Why? Well, musn't everybody love Obama, the abortion lover?

Seriously, what mainstream news outlet have you heard this from? How many appeared to side, or even credit these students with "their right to free speech" and moral fortitude?
Don't hurt your brain trying to think of one.

Damn Straight!

You really don't think Canada is going to let Russia push us around, do you?
Regardless of what you may think, Canada does have a formidable military. Yes, we even joke about our military ourselves sometimes (our navy is a bunch of row boats and a couple of dingys)
But make no mistake, we love our boys and girls in uniform and we know their past historical acomplisments and know there will be future victories.

Much like when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told President Reagan (while in the Oval Office, looking at a map of the Arctic and discussing arctic sovernty) "That's ours." Meaning, a big chunk of the northern territories are in Canada's posession and we won't give it up without a fight. Especially to the Ruskies.


Obama Stacks Townhall with Backers

Is there any wonder that he recieved not one single, tough question from that particular audience? Is it any wonder that "journalists" like Keith Olberloon and his little brother, Rachael Maddow do not question this turn of events, other than to say it isn't true and villify anyone who says different?

The lengths these losers will go to cover their own twisted, senseless diatribe truly astounds me. As far as the author's "Obama is taking a page from the Bush playbook" line. Not true. Who exactly did Bush "plant" in the audience at any of his press conferences or townhall meetings? I mean, when, name me one time Bush got off easy from the press? You know as well as I do (and anybody that has even a miniscule amount of brainwaves) that the mainstream morons who like to think they're America's conscience would have ran this story into the ground for weeks.

But alas, we're talking about "The One" and the MSM afterall.
I 've said it before and I'll say it again: we need press police.

Where Are They Now?

I've been saying this for months, now. Where in the world are all the Code Pinks, Michael Moores and the Cindy Sheehan-types that constantly beraded the Bush administration for being "war criminals" and waging an "illegal" and "immoral' war? Why aren't they chastizing President Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan and killing inocent civilians? Wheres the outrage?

Once again (and again and again) now that Das Wunderkit is in charge and he's giving the orders to put people to death, it's o.k. now.

Some of the left-wing loons that called Bush a "murderer" and "Hitler" even support the surge of troops into Afghanistan and it's escalation.
Even though the author wants you to think otherwise, the "Afghanistan plan" of Obama's is no different than Bush's. Bush never, not once, said that the military could do it all and is the only viable solution. How do you think the loyalty of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia "loyalty" changed from al Queda to America? Yeah, he was paid off, but whatever works, right? That's certainly the jist of Soltz's article. But no credit to Bush for doing what Obama wants to do, but yet the new president gets all the glory for something that hasn't even been put into practice.

I will say that this is one area that I hope Obama succeeds, however it gets done.

Will wonders never cease? The creeps.

Obama Insults Brits?

Apparently so, with what NewsBusters calls, his "gift gaffe."

Nevermind the fact that the President promised to "improve our relations with 'the world" once he took office. "So far, all he's done is tell our enemies he's their friend and carelessly wave off our actual friends."

First he gives his first interview as president to the enemy's propaganda machine, then he bombs an ally, then he lays the golden egg at the feet of the enemy in the form of $900 million, now he's insulting the staunchest American ally in the last, what, 90 or so years?

This guy is just proving all us naysayers wrong at every turn isn't he?

Friday, March 27, 2009

Social Security Surpluses Gone?

This could be real trouble.
But not for Harry Reid who said that there is no Social Security crisis. Likewise for Nancy Pelosi.
What do they say now?

Bush tried to warn them, as did President Clinton and his cabinet. If they didn't listen to Clinton back then, who would they need to club them over their collective heads now? Because remember, they can spend your money better than you can.

H/T to Captain's Quarters.

Great Response to Those Who Think Dissent is "Un-Patriotic"

Remember all the Bush-bashing from every single Democrat saying they wanted Bush to fail? You don't? Hmm. I'm sure the MSM would have made that obvious comparison by now. I wonder what the hold-up is?

Anyway, every Dem from Weasel Harry and Blinky Pelosi to John Marry-a-rich-woman-to sustain-my-career Kerry and Hillary "Dodge those snipers" Clinton said "the war is lost," (meaning the soldiers are failures as well, I guess) "We all believe that current administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership . . . We need a change." - Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, a group of 27 former U.S. diplomats and military officials.

And there are lots more. So you see, many people were hoping to see Bush (or his policies)"fail"
But don't you dare say anything detrimental about President Obama, ohh no. Oh yeah, and lay off his ears!

But the real point to all of this is that Bobby Jindal says "It's o.k."
He may not have looked to good giving the GOP response to Obama's "kind-of-State-of-the-Union" address, but boy, can he make a point.

Howard Dean Says Don't Pick On the Keith Olbermann

This would be hysterical if it weren't so ludicris.

There has to be cohesivness, there has to be bi-partisanship. Well, how do you expect to get that done and how do you expect people to believe you when, again on national television, you say things like this?

Remember, this is Howard Dean we're talking about here. You know the guy that actually said publicly the difference between his party and the Republicans is that his party "actually cares if children go to bed hungry." The inference being, the Republican party doesn't care if kids are starving in America. Um, what was that No Child Left Behind, school voucher thing all about anyway Mr. Chairman?


You know when the Republican Party says or does anything remotely controversial, the Dems and liberal media will stop at nothing to have you know about it, and have you hear their take on it (totally out of context, of course) but when Democrats lip off about anything, including saying it on national televison, so as to leave no doubt on their meaning (although then they have to go on Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, The View, etc. to "explain" what they meant) no one in the MSM say boo. Hardly anyone from CBS and NBC to MSNBC and CNN even try a little dissent or contradiction. Whenever a liberal or Democrat go on national televison and liken the GOP to Nazis (D.L. Hughley you sir, are a complete and udder imbecile) the anchor(s) of said newscasts just say nothing (which is agreement by omission) and seem to nod in agreement, as if to say "Well, that's a given."
Whew. I'm sure glad that "Fairness Doctrine" will fix all that.

Speaking of the Idiot Olbermannn

He once again accused someone of doing something they didn't do, highly probable due to his usual no-research, lie-about-whatever "newscasts."

Again, it was FOX News who was the recipient of his unsubstantiated vitriol. Apparently Herr Olbermann thinks FOX is out to get him (not realizing he continualy does it to himself-and by extension, the whole MSNBC network)

He tries to sell (lie) to the American public that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is targeting him now, through, of all things, Twitter. That's right, the paranoid one thinks Fox News has hijacked his Twitter account (that he claims he didn't register for, that he in fact, "abandoned it...last summer." He says FOX is behind it. Turns out, it was NBC themselves who had created the account, apparently without Olberloon knowing about it. But he still thinks FOX is responsible.
Get this man a straight jacket.

Obama All In?

A surge for the President? Does he believe in this one? If it works, will he be slow to admit it? Somehow, I think not?

The nutroots sure aren't happy.
"Earlier this week Ilan Goldenberg, the policy director at the progressive National Security Network, offered this analysis at the Huffington Post:
The 'all in' approach, best exemplified by John McCain and Joe Lieberman's op-ed in the Washington Post, argues for 'victory' through a full scale commitment of undetermined length at an undetermined cost. It is supported by hawks like McCain and Lieberman who generally believe that America must 'win' any war no matter the cost."

Isn't that what you're supposed to do? Win at any cost? Do you think Patton would have expected any less? How about MacArthur? Do you think they would have quit? Sure MacArthur had reluctantly leave thousands of troops behind after his superiors screwed him and his men, when the powers-that-be wouldn't immediately form a rescue operation from the hands of the Japanese in the Phillipines. That pretty much sounds like the plan of the Democrats in any modern-day war, win by surrendering. Caring not one aioda about how it affects the soveirnty

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Beck & Kelly discuss What I've Been Saying for Months

Liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin. And not because of why they say. "She's stupid," "she thinks the earth is only 6000 years ols," she burns books," "she doesn't buy her own clothing," etc. Not exactly legitimate reasons to be "afraid" of someone now,is it?

Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly discuss it on Beck's show (which is now the number two cable show, behind only Bill O'Reilly, in the world)

Free Speech Officially Dead in England

Well, actually it has been for some time.

But now you can't even make it as a living as a stand-up comedian in England anymore.

You know all those people who ever said, "Watch, soon you won't even be allowed to make a joke about 'em?"
They were right.

Obama Flustered by Reporter on Deficit Projections

Specifically about the "down years," the years after a president's first term. He's going to learn that he's the president now. It's his economy. The excuses are getting old already. That may be a factor in the surprisingly early honeymoon-ending questions from some of the MSM's elite. I mean even the New York Times' Paul Krugman was critical of Obama recently-Paul Krugman!

The President kind of answers the first question in his bouncing-around-the-issue-kind of way, but seems to get annoyed at Henry's second query. Hmm. Do ya think this may be setting in?

What Would Happen?

It's not that far-fetched, folks.

Hot Topic

How do conservatives fight back? How does the Republican Party get their message across?

Again. Why don't some millionaire conservatives get together and buy a movie studio? Or at least get into the DVD distribution business? They could buy a couple of newspapers or magazines. I thought Roger Ailes was going to reel in the New York Times. How much would that have made the liberals heads spin and explode?
That's how you get your message out (or any kind of message you want to the masses)

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
-Maxwell Scott, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

Popularity and Media Love Affair Declining?

Is there a crack in the clouds, finally? Nah, too much love still in Obama Nation.

He's Got Hiiiigh Hopes, He's Got...

The President is hoping to solve the national debt by triple-spending it into an irreversible disaster and accumulating more debt than can be handled before the country collapses.

I guess he's hoping Congress will see things his way. Hmm. Do ya think he'll be able to pass such a bill with those concerned, vigilant Democrats watching the Hill?

Just...the nerve.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Russian Obama Ice Cream?


And don't forget to try our other delicious flavors...

Tangerine good, like your in a "New World"

Pineapple Pelosi....pork flavored premium ice cream with little chunks of "earmarks"

Bilderberg and Blueberry...."secretly" delicious

Orange Obama Stimulus....favorite among illegal aliens
and those of the "Entitlement" mentality

Acorn Sherbet....fraudulently delicious!!!

Apples and Ayers...explosive green apple flavor!!

Lemon-Lime Lefty-Liberal....Bitter taste

Raspberry Rahm.....tastes like raspberries and Texas Pete

Grape Geithner....looks and tastes good, but gives you the "Shits"

Banana Birth flavor at all, like eating water...nothing there.

Crunchy Peanut Parson.....deceptively delicious

There Really Wasn't Any Doubt...

But that doesn't make Biden a seer, you know. Like we didn't know all this would happen? We're supposed to be surprised that a president with no experience in anything would be tested by the world's bad guys? C'mon.

The Vice-President simply was stating a historical fact. When there's a new kid on the international block, he or she is going to be tested, period. That's the way of history. That's the history of warfare and conquering.

The question wasn't was he going to be tested, it was how will he respond? Now we know. He doesn't.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Palin Owes "Substantial Debt" to Alaskan Law Firm

To stave herself off from the multitude of unfounded and frivolous attacks on her character and her job as Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin now has to pay the law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness. She now owes in excess of over half a million dollars.

Watch the lefties go nuts over this one. Their attack dogs go after her with vitriolic intent, slur her good name, lie about the private lives of her and her family, now they'll probably dance with joy in all of their hatred about how she is now worse than say, Tim Geithner or some other Democrat (hand-picked by Obama) that doesn't pay their taxes, or other monies owed.

The reason Palin is in such high debt with her lawyers? As Palin herself says,
"On August 29, it seems the political landscape changed in Alaska. Now, it seems in order to do this job as Governor, with the political blood sport some are playing today, only the independently wealthy or those willing to spend their income on legal fees to defend their official actions in office ... can serve."

'Tis true.

Khamenei Tells Obama to Buzz Off

Remember, no pre-conditions, Mr. Pesident. See where placating gets you. Now in the eyes of Iran, the Arab League, and to every resident ofthe Middle East, you are now, in their eyes (and in the eyes of many insightful Americans-you know, the ones that didn't "earn your trust") what Osama bin Laden called a "paper tiger."

First, Obama's innaugural foreign-press interview went to the Middle East. Then he has Hillary Clinton offer a $900 million pay-off to what, pay them off to rebuild, purchase more weapons and buy time to for whatever else? All in the name of "tolerence" and "peace on earth" and all that liberal crap. Good job. Show how weak America has become towards her enemies.

I know Obama is trying to "correct" America's image (for what reason and for whom I still can't figure out) so I guess freeing 50 million people in Iraq and Afghnistan from tyranny and oppression (not to mention the millions if not billions more saved from the Nazis) and billons in AIDS research in Africa. It's funny how no one in the MSM mentions potentionally how many lives President Bush has saved on that continent.

But anyways, Khamenei to Obama: "NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!"

Thursday, March 19, 2009

So Let Me Get This Straight...

The Democrat Congress (particularly Senator Chris Dodd) included, in writing, bonus payouts to AIG bigwigs (and other company CE & COOs) that would be drawn from the "stimulus" package that American taxpayers are subsidizing. Dodd has admitted to this after days of lying to the American people. More golden parachutes courtesy of the American taxpayer. Of course, like all Democrat scandals, thet aren't to blame. This time they're pinning it on AIG chief, Edward Liddy (ok, then) but also Dodd himself said the Devil made him do it. Some AIGers are reportedly willing to give their bonuses back. See what a 90% tax on your bonuses can accomplish? The Democrats have taxed their own to save their own corrupt tail-feathers. Well, they did receive big kickbacks from these people that are the "evil big business" doers, didn't they? So instead of taxing themselves, or , God forbid, give the money back, the Congressional Demorats have decided to all pass the buck in their "culture of corruption."

Speaking of Nancy Pelosi; for her useless part, is blaming everyone but herself and her cronies.

How may Democrats are going to jail? How many Democrats are going to lose their seats, one way or another? How many Democrats are going to be protected by the MSM? Answer: None, none and probably all.

Hey, where is the President in all this? Oh right, just like when he had time for the NBA All-Star game, he also has time (in the middle of the same economic fiasco) to make picks for the NCAA Final Four. Nice to know that he still has his priorities in the right order.

Smoothest transition evaahh.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

We Told You So

But, as usual the Loonie Left simply doesn't pay attention to history and/or common sense.
Is the best way to describe it, resentment? Or just usual lefty ignorance?

This was all already explained by myself (with the invaluable help of author, David Freddoso) here, here, here, here and here. Or you could (and should) just pick up Freddoso's book, "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlike Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." If you think I push this book too much, it's because it is a must read if you really want to know about Obama's past, his radical views (that, sadly, everyone is just now starting to get a whiff of) and his twisted vision for America.

But not to worry, this is all just part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," anyways.

Who's going to be the first to defending Obama and say I'm (we) are grasping at straws?

Monday, March 16, 2009

Ron Silver Dies..A Good Actor and Former Lefty That Saw the Light

Actor and former Democrat, Ron Silver died yesterday from cancer, he was 62.
He left the Democrat party in 2001 and became an Independent and a supporter of President Bush, citing the 9/11 attacks and Democratic policies regarding terrorism as reasons. He was a guest speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention:

At first I didn't even know that Silver was a Democrat. But being an actor in Hollyweird, well, when in Rome...
I first saw his political side in the Fahrenheit 9/11-debunking documentary that-finally, after being the darling of the media for waaay to long-exposed Michael Moore for the manipulator and liar that he is, Fahrenhype 9/11. Silver shared his views on "Moore's version of national defense, no thanks." He also narrated the film. I remember a lot of his good performances in mainstream films, as well. I think Blue Steel with Jamie Lee Curtis is where I consciencely remember him first. There must have been an earlier one, but nothing comes to mind.

But I liked his acting, his performances and the fact that he came to the light after having been on the dark side for how many years as a desciple of crazy-think.

May he rest in peace.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Waterboarding Okay for Movie Criminals, Not Real Life Terrorists

A great column by Big Hollywood's Debbie Schlussel on liberal Hollywood's hypocrisy...yes, even more.

Do you ever get the feeling that the reason the MSM and all the liberal pundits and talk show hosts are interested in the uneducated opinions of celebrities is that these people are the inhabitants of where they think the world exists? Or at least they want it to be.

That land being the make-believe world of Hollyweird, of course.
Do ya?

A comment left on the page tld of an interesting tale of war, if it's true:

"My personal favorite is General "BlackJack" Pershing's solution: "Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists, and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. Muslims detest pork, because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from Paradise (and those virgins), and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs' blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies, and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next 42 years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world."


You Know That Olive Branch to Cuba and Venezuela?

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [Still] Lowest in 30-Years

Michael Yon Essay- Part II

The Pathetic Afghan Army & Will Obama Fumble Iraq?
By Michael Yon

11 March 2009

The disconnect between reporting and reality on Iraq was dramatic during 2005. Media stories about the incompetence and hopelessness of the Iraqi army and police were like the soup of the day, every day. Yet month by month, before my eyes, Iraqi security forces were improving. Reporting this truth earned the label of “stooge,” because the soup of the day was Failure. Millions of Americans and Europeans apparently wanted Iraqis to suffer because those same Americans and Europeans seemed to hate George Bush.

Today Iraq is succeeding, but as Generals Petraeus or Odierno might say, the situation remains fragile and reversible.
Whereas the Bush-war ended in a new if messy democracy, this year we could see an Obama-war begin; the new President has sent a clear signal that we intend to mostly abandon Iraq during this crucial transition period. Today, the progress is obvious. But if Iraq descends back into chaos, the Obama-war, a newborn war, will not be a result of U.S. aggression, but of limp leadership intent on fulfilling campaign promises that were misinformed to begin with.

Back in 2003, it was understandable that many people would detest what they believed was an illegal war – despite that Hussein refused to abide by U.N. resolutions – but it was telling to see that many people apparently wished cruelty upon the Iraqis out of malice for the United States or George Bush. Those wishes were coming from cold, cruel hearts, pretending to care. Among these people were the cruel souls who would later stand outside military hospitals, mocking young men and women who had suffered amputations and other grievous injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today there remain people who wish to precipitously disjoin from the growing success in Iraq, and who apparently ultimately wish to see Iraq fail out of sheer malice not toward Iraq, but toward certain politicians and governments. If President Obama fumbles the evacuation of combat forces, they may get their wish.

But while millions of people wished to see Iraq fail, courageous Iraqi volunteers lined up to join the army and police. They were frequently blown to pieces while they waited. Nevertheless, the Iraqi army and police grew like bamboo. Every day the body counts rose, satisfying the pernicious souls parading as peace lovers who seemed to relish the mounting losses. I once reported that apparently more people had been killed on an annual basis under the wars and genocides of Saddam Hussein, than were dying in the current war. This observation was made without narration or opinion, but it unleashed a special venom that strikes only at the ankles of inconvenient truths. Should we have expected otherwise, after our government had behaved so arrogantly and deceptively?

Today the Iraqi army and police are on their feet and the government and economy are improving, though still in need of years of assistance, and at this time of mounting success, we are leaving. The enemies seem to be biding their time.
Going into Iraq was a decision made by many. Pulling out so quickly is a decision made by one man.

Yet the Afghanistan situation was nearly opposite. Most westerners seem to want to see Afghanistan succeed, and they veritably chant about poverty and women’s rights, though few people actually are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to achieve dreamy visions. Whatever the case, the public and the media gave a free pass to dozens of nations in Afghanistan, and today about 40 nations are directly involved. Some of the military bases look like a carnival of uniforms, and the soldiers behave under a carnival of rules. By the time you add in all the contractors, aid workers, “friendly” spies and deadly enemies, it’s likely that people from a hundred countries are inside Afghanistan at this moment. Despite the broad representation, until recently we called it “The Forgotten War.”

Today we have an American President and Secretary of Defense who have essentially kicked, prodded and begged our allies to get more serious about Afghanistan, but mostly to no avail. And so 17,000 more American troops are kissing their loved ones goodbye, many of them for the last time in their lives, and heading into Afghanistan. Per capita combat deaths probably will be higher in Afghanistan this year than for any year in Iraq. The situation is very serious for the relatively few soldiers fighting there. Some are in combat every day and night.

The AfPak war began more than seven years ago. It is fair to ask why are we sending more U.S. troops today. After all, we’ve had plenty of time to build an army and police. If drive-by journalists listen to some of the commanders on the ground, they might come back with reports that all is okay, and that the Afghan army is coming along nicely, and that certain writers are exaggerating. I’ve had those same briefings from commanders. Just as in 2004 Iraq, I believe that Americans and Europeans have been deceived by their governments.

I’ve asked many key officers why we are not using our Special Forces (specifically Green Berets) in a more robust fashion to train Afghan forces. The stock answers coming from the Green Beret world – from ranking officers anyway – is that they are taking a serious role in training Afghan forces. But the words are inconsistent with my observations. The reality is that the Green Berets – the only outfit in the U.S. military who are so excellently suited to put the Afghan army into hyperdrive – are mostly operating with small groups of Afghans doing what appears to be Colorado mule deer hunts in the mountains of Afghanistan. Special Forces A-teams are particularly well suited to train large numbers of people, but are not doing so.

Command will dispute my words, and privately have been doing so. But they cannot point to a map of Afghanistan and show where they are training significant numbers of Afghans. This information would not be secret or even confidential. Our troops who are partnered up with Afghans are often not the right choice for that particular job.
Nevertheless, some officers are already privately disputing my claims about the Afghan Army, and so I present these words from the British government:


To clarify, I am asking you to set out, as best you can, how you think we can achieve an Afghanistan where the insurgency has ceased-ideally totally or to the greatest possible extent-and where there is a stable Government in place, who hopefully are democratically elected and respect basic human rights and in particular the rights of women.

That is a very challenging question. I will say two things on the centre of gravity-the key thing that will unlock success in the campaign. Currently, the centre of gravity is building the capacity of the Afghan security forces. There are 85 battalions in the Afghan national army. It is very small with only 68,000 troops. We must double that force size. More battalions must be able to operate independently. Of the 85 battalions, one can operate independently at battalion level and only 26 can operate with ISAF [international security assistance force] support at battalion level. We need to increase the training and capability. We must increase the Afghan air force, which is pathetically small.

The key to getting out of Afghanistan is to build the Afghan forces. British practice on that has been very good over the last year. They have increased the co-embedding of Afghan and British battalions. An Afghan battalion is partnered with every British battle group in the Helmand area of operations. However, more could be done. For example, the operational mentor and liaison teams are 40% under strength. We must put more resources into building the Afghan air force and national army. That will give us success.

I agree with that, but in order to do it the international forces must have a unified strategy, which they do not. They must have a unified command structure, which they do not.
This is not necessarily about NATO. NATO happens to be leading the international security assistance force, but it has been led by other bodies. NATO is not essential to this function. We could revert to Turkish command, which is how it all started. However, there must be more unity of strategy. I have heard Afghan Ministers complain that individual countries are delivering their individual strategies through their embassies. I have struggled to find another example of where that has happened.

This testimony, that only a single battalion out of 85 can operate independently, and only 26 can operate even with support, sharply diverges from what high commanders will tell journalists in Afghanistan. Our Special Forces (Green Berets) in particular have taken only a passing role in the training. Some can argue otherwise, but as we roll into 2009, we have been at war in Afghanistan for more than seven years. More than 2,500 days. How much is it costing us per day? $100 million? $200 million? We have little to show for the lost limbs and lives. According to the British testimony, only a single battalion can fight without a real army holding its hand. The police are in far worse condition.
We are not busy teaching Afghans to fish; we are busy fishing for them, and they are slowly but surely getting tired of us.

What Else is New?

Via Weasel Zippers

It should be shocking, but really, isn't this the norm now?

Someone attempting to warn the world (as if it doesn't already know) about Islam's little dark secret gets the boot from Britain (actually he wasn't allowed in in the first place due to his "inflammatory and insensitive" remarks about the "religion of peace."
But apparently, a known terrorist organization, one that's committed to the destruction of Israel and the deaths of every Jew on the planet, is welcomed with open arms.

You know people like Mark Steyn make jokes about "Eurabia," but it's becoming clearer and clearer that it really is no joke now, is it? Is a war against "Britain" coming? Say about 2050? (or sooner)

Not cool.

Didn't We Hear This Before?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't John McCain say this during the campaign? Didn't he say that the "economy was sound?" Didn't the Democrats and Obama himself chastise the Arizona senator for "wildly" saying that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong?"

He did. And it was probably a factor in his losing bid for the White House.
But now, the One has said it and ...oh, no problem. If the Messiah says it, then it's the gospel, right?

"I think it's a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system, but also our political system, is extraordinary," said President Obama. "I think that not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States."

Interesting, wouldn't you say? I mean McCain was senile (and loses the election due to this and the MSM's "objectivity") yet, Obama is just being "confident." Like I said, interesting.

Ace of Spades has a take on this as well.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

This Just May Be the Beginning of Something

You know the Iranians will deny and complain while laying blame.
What did you expect? A full-on admission?

Osama bin Elvis?

I can't say that I agree with this, even with all the "evidence" he provides, but this piece by The American Spectator's Angelo M. Codevilla is interesting, nonetheless,

In Case You Were Interested

Just in case you wanted to know what happened to the "Shoe-Throwing" Iraqi journalist that attempted to assault President Bush, he got three years in prison. Say what you will. The Iraqis apparently take their reputation as good hosts and followers of international law seriously.

Undoubtedly there will be haters on the left who think that this man should get a medal for his actions (in fact, there are those who have said that) but what does that mean for President Obama's (God forbid) future assailants (if any?) their own country? I mean really. I think these people would have celebrated more upon hearing the death of their own president than those that celebrated the deaths of innocent American civilians throughout the Middle East on 9/11.

I don't know if he should have gotten three years, but the Iraqi justice system apparently thinks otherwise. You can't just go around hurling footwear at heads of state, especially not if that head of state happens to be the President of the United States.
But again, what would have happened to him if he had done that to Saddam Hussein? Of course, that can't be answered, because it wasn't Hussein that gave him the freedom to do so, it was Bush now, wasn't it?

We've Got Bigger Problems, But...

Remember when President Bush said through a hot mic to former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, "...they have to get their s**t together" and the left-wing media made such a big deal about it on how a head of state should be more stoic and mature? Well Joe Gaffe (that's Vice-President Biden don't you know?) did the exact same thing and no one from the left has batted an eye, as usual.

Now I know this is much ado about nothing, and I can compare gaffe for gaffe and line for line, between the two administrations, but what will that get us? Besides that theirs is worse than ours? And of course whining and denial from the left? But that's what I do, expose liberal bias and hypocrisy whenever I can. I know there are right-wing hypocrites (and I know who they are) but I'll leave that to some hateful lefty to try and make rhyme and/or reason out of.

So...did you catch this?

Oh, That Joe! (No. 48 in a Series) -- Gimme a Break
March 13, 2009 5:40 PMHuma Khan

At an event at Union Station today where Vice President Joe Biden was heralding the $1.3 billion in investments in rebuilding train stations and passenger rails, a microphone picked up one of the former senator's myriad Senate colleagues addressing him, formally, as "Mr. Vice President."That met with Vice President Biden's standard reply."Gimme a f*&$#ing break," he said, apparently unaware that the microphone was on.

Obama Lied, Post-Partisanship Died

I've been off a few days (from posting , that is) because of my hectic (read: screwed up) work schedule. I have to catch up on a few things, but with all the unreported gaffes by the Obama administration in this week alone, I don't think I can get to them all. Not unless I'm willing to spend at least the next three hours at the keyboard.

But anywho, how many times did we hear the "Bush lied, kids died," mantra from the left-wing media and bloggers or whatever variation they used at any given time? Well, it's our time now, eh.

A surprisingly provacotive and thought-provoking column by WaPo's Michael Gerson on how President Obama has drawn the ire of the right, while his followers defend any little act, while not even questioning his motives or logic in the least. The exact same thing the left chastised the right for when they, allegedly, blindly followed and appologized for every decision by President Bush.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Good Riddance

See ya...moron. Well, not permenantly.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

University Study Finds Media Bias Leans the Right?

Quick little cut and paste post. THIS is what the libs will try to use to counter the right's claims about liberal media bias. It's sort of a long read, but it really tears apart this study from Indiana University, as noted by the author's closing statement:

"Overall, none of the exaggerated claims being made about this study have any validity, yet this study will be used by Democrats to assert without justification that there is Republicans leaning media bias. Even worse, when the next Indiana University study comes out covering the 2008 election, it will likely conclude that the media favored Republicans as well, even though it was the most biased coverage in favor of Democrats in the history of this Country. Hey, if scientists can make statements without statistically significant data, I might as well join in the fun, and call it science too."


Around February 2009, Indiana University professors announced the results of a study concluding that, “A visual analysis of television presidential campaign coverage from 1992 to 2004 suggests that the three television broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- favored Republicans in each election.”

Consequently, I immediately contacted Erik Bucy, one of the authors of the study and an associate professor in the Department of Telecommunications of IU's College of Arts and Sciences. The study is titled, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (Oxford University Press).

Professor Bucy was extremely polite to me via email, and even sent me Chapter 5 of his study so that I could determine how the study was coded. Coding is the means by which social scientists take a non-quantifiable variable, such as Bias, and make it quantifiable.

The reason why the coding for this study is so important is because coding often leads to absurd results. For example, we often read studies in magazines that proclaim that X city is the “Fattest” city. I am sure readers would be surprised to learn that this conclusion is rarely determined by gathering the Body Mass Index of a random sample of people, but rather by the number of workout gyms per Capita. I digress.

Summary of My Observations

Below I have carefully analyzed the data from the Indiana University study. Since Indiana University plans to conduct a similar study for the 2008 election, I run the risk of the Professors refusing to send me the coding from their next study. Nevertheless, I owe my readers a truthful evaluation of what I read, and I justify all my critical statements based on the data from the study. Where possible, I cite direct passages from Chapter 5 for support.

Overall, this study did not find statistically significant evidence to support the vast majority of the claims made by the authors. Some statistically significant data even contradict the authors' claims. In fact, the editorializing conducted in Chapter 5’s discussion section goes so far outside the four corners of the study that it borders on pure advocacy. As a result, most if not all of the the headlines seen around the Internet and on Television based on this study have no merit whatsoever.

The Study

When the public discusses media bias, what they are usually referring to is news content or news commentary. This Indiana University study, although briefly addressing content and commentary, focused heavily on the largely ignored “visual analysis” of television news content instead.

According to the authors, 50 years of research has determined that there is no scientifically significant evidence of liberal media bias. This is not surprising if one dives deeper to figure out how “Bias” has been coded over the last 50 years. According to the authors,

“The most basic and widely used measure of journalistic bias is volume of coverage. Volume in this context refers to how much media attention a particular party or candidate received.”

The fact of the matter is that volume of coverage is a terrible indicator of bias. What really matters is positive information presented about a candidate, and negative information that is omitted or “sugarcoated” about a candidate, not how many times one candidate is covered. This is especially true after the primaries when there are only two serious contenders for the Presidency.

While I concede that not one reporter visited John McCain on his trip to South America, and all three network news anchors traveled with Barack Obama to Germany, Republicans rarely argue that the media is not covering them enough. Rather, Republicans cite an enormous body of evidence that the mainstream media, with the exception of Fox News and Talk Radio, slant the news favoring liberal policies, programs and candidates.

Whether or not true content bias can ever be adequately coded is a very significant issue. For example, how would one adequately code interview bias? Below is an apple-to-apple comparison of Charlie Gibson interviewing Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. (Note that some of the questions are paraphrased).

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Not only did Charlie Gibson favor Barack Obama, but it gets worse: The person who first coined the term, “Bush Doctrine,” (Charles Krauthammer) proclaimed that even he did even know the answer to the question about the Bush Doctrine. So aside from Sarah Palin being treated more harshly, she was the unlucky recipient of a question to which there was no answer.

A typical media bias study looking at volume of coverage would never identify Charlie Gibson’s bias. In fact, a scientific study on media bias based on volume of coverage would conclude that Charles Gibson gave a non-biased interview! If the social science community would be honest with itself, their methods of observing media bias are simply inadequate.

Conversely, simple observation demonstrates an objective fact: Charles Gibson gave a significantly more difficult interview to Sarah Palin than Barack Obama.

Take two more examples: 1) In George W. Bush’s 2000 interview, one of his first questions was, “Who is the President of Chechnya?; and 2) A mid afternoon “Breaking News” headline on MSNBC, “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” How would social scientists code these questions for bias?

Volume of Coverage

As Newsbusters already pointed out, the sample size for this Indiana University study was lacking to say the least:

They examined 62 hours of broadcast network news coverage -- a total of 178 newscasts -- between Labor Day and Election Day over four U.S. presidential elections between 1992 and 2004. Cable news outlets, including CNN and Fox News, were not included in their research. The professors are now looking at 2008 election coverage.

That's 62 hours of coverage over four election cycles, or less than 16 hours a cycle! Even within the last two months of an election cycle, the three networks would have 90 hours of evening newscasts (which would mean they're skipping more than 80 percent of the sample.)

Even so, for the sake of argument I will analyze the data below as if it was a good representative sample of the media, which it clearly is not.

For the Volume of Coverage variable of the study, "Chi-square analysis were not significant either overall or for any of [the] four election years." This meant that despite any trends favoring Republicans, all the results could have resulted by chance and the study demonstrated absolutely nothing! Nevertheless, this did not stop the authors for using the statistically insignificant trends in their Press release to claim that there was bias in favor of Republicans:

Grabe and Bucy found the volume of news coverage focusing exclusively on each party -- one measure of media bias -- favored Republicans. Their research found there were more single-party stories about Republicans overall and in each election year except 1992. When they studied the time duration of these stories, no pattern of favoritism was evident.

The statement above has absolutely no merit since all the results were statistically insignificant. I will address later how the authors take additional statistically insignificant trends to editorialize entire sections of the study.

Visual Analysis

In order to conduct visual analysis, several variables were tested. I outline several of them below.

Visual Weight was defined as, “A broad structural level assigned to stories about competing candidate…compared for emphasis and assigned importance.”

Visual weight also observed two subcategories: 1)Type of Story; and 2) Story Position.

Each of these subcategories was then broken down into a spectrum of smaller variables. One end of the spectrum was most favorable toward the candidate, while the other end was least favorable toward a candidate. For example, the Type of Story that was most favorable was an interview, while a news anchor reading about a candidate from a teleprompter without a visual was least favorable.

Overall, the full spectrum progressed from reader, to voice-over, to voice-over-sound-on-tape, to package, to an interview.

Like the volume of coverage variable, "The differences between parties were not statistically significant.” In fact, Democrats received more interviews! Nevertheless, this did not stop the authors from using the statistically insignificant trends that favored Republicans to justify their conclusions. It also seems incredibly suspicious that the authors ignored the interview trends that favored Democrats when making their final conclusions.

The Story Position subcategory was broken down into whether a story about a candidate was the lead story, a story before the first break or a story after the first break. A lead story was determined to be the most favorable for a candidate.

Like before, “[S]tory position in the newscast, produced low counts in some cells; consequently, the Chi-square statistic was not applied in cross-tabulation comparisons." Therefore, there was no statistically significant evidence to justify a claim of story position bias. Nevertheless, the authors again used the trends favoring Republicans to justify their claims of bias in favor of Republicans.

Packaging Techniques was another variable that included editing techniques and camera angles that were favorable or less favorable toward the candidate.

Like the Visual Weight variable, each subcategory was broken down into smaller variables.

Editing techniques included a variable, labeled “last say,” meaning that the journalist allowed the candidate to have the last word when a story featured the candidate.

The authors' data for "last say" is very ambiguous. As I mentioned above, "last say" was determined based on the quantity of "last says" not the duration of a "last say". Yet, the authors seem to have measured both types of "last say" data and make it very unclear if both types are statistically significant. The results for duration concluded that, "Republicans had the last say more often than Democrats, but only 1996 appear[ed] to be statistically significant."

The best I can tell from the data is that in 1996, based on the extremely small sample size, Bob Dole had longer, and possibly more, "last says" than Bill Clinton. But, the researchers do something extremely odd with their data. They look at the statistically insignificant years and combined them with 1996 to conclude that the media was biased in favor of Republicans for every year.

Why the authors felt that Bob Dole getting more "last says" than Bill Clinton benefited George W. Bush against John Kerry leaves me speechless.

Another variable was labeled the “lip flap,” where a candidate is speaking while the journalist is talking over the candidate’s muted audio.

The authors again state, "[N]one these differences were statistically significant." Still the authors use the trends again to justify their conclusions and in their press release they state the following:

In their research, Democrats were more likely to be subjects of the "lip-flap" effect, while Republicans more often got the last word. GOP candidates were favored in terms of having the last say in all but the 2004 election. In 1992, the difference was distinctive with Republicans having the final say 57.9 percent of the time. In 1996, Republicans had eight times as many last-say opportunities as Democrats.
The above statement is again not entirely true because the only statistically significant difference was in 1996 for the"last say" variable. The researchers simply spread the 1996 data over statistically insignificant years to get a particular result for all the years combined. In fact, the researchers acknowledge little statistical support in the study:

Given the pattern of findings for these editing variables, it is reasonable to conclude that the networks have give a persistent advantage to Republicans over Democrats. Yet statistical support for this claim is spotty.

The camera angel variables are self-explanatory (N.B: There are some camera techniques that I do not discuss, because they are also statistically insignificant). Extreme close-ups and high angles were deemed to be less favorable when compared to medium shots, close-ups and low angles. The more distance from a camera shot also created a less intimate shot for the candidate.

Overall, in terms of camera angles, only 1992 demonstrated statistically significant differences that Democrats received more high angle shots. However, it appears that when all years are tabulated together, and 1992 is spread across all statistically insignificant years, Democrats receive more high angle shots. Again, this is a pretty strange way to demonstrate more high angle shot for John Kerry by citing more high angle shots for Bill Clinton.

Whether or not Republicans received more low angle shots was not statistically significant.

For shot length, it appeared that medium angle shots fluctuated over time, and since they are the most neutral type of shot, it is difficult to conclude bias either way. Yet, like before, the authors used statistically insignificant trends to reach baseless conclusions. In 1992, the only year where long shots were statistically significant, "George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle were presented in significantly more long shots than Bill Clinton and Al Gore." Even according to the authors:

"Long shots,...are not conducive to establishing rapport between candidates and viewers."

All other camera zooms were not statistically significant.

So overall, the only statistically significant data supported that long shots favored Democrats in 1992, although Democrats were hurt in 1992 with more high angle shots. Republicans also received more "last says" in 1996.

All other trends were statistically insignificant or where no real conclusion could be drawn. Nevertheless, this did not stop the researchers from editorializing their own conclusions based on statistically insignificant trends. In fact, in their press release they say just the opposite:

"Republicans were seen least through the scrutinizing and unflattering perspective of an extreme close-up. This was the case overall and for all election years except 1996," they said. "Long shots . . . were move evident in coverage of Democrats than Republicans overall, but not at statistically significant levels."

That is not true; Democrats received less long shots than Republicans in 1992 at a statistically significant level. The authors ignore their own data! Moreover, the extreme close-up data was not statistically significant.

What Can Be Learned from This Study

Overall, the most that can be learned from this study is that after taking an extremely small sample of the mainstream media during election coverage:

1) There was almost no statistically significant data to support visual bias in favor of either party;

2) In 1996, Bob Dole benefited from having longer and possibly more (see above why there is confusion) "last says" on television. When all the years are totaled together, there appears to be a potential statistical significance of benefiting Republicans. But, it begs the question why combining one year of statistical significance with other years of statistical insignificance makes the bias in insignificant years more evident?;

3) Bill Clinton received more high angle shots in 1992, and when all the years are totaled together, there appears to be a potential statistical significance of high angle shots being used against Democrats. Again, it begs the question why combining one year of statistical significance with other years of statistical insignificance makes the bias in insignificant years more evident?;

4) In 1992, Democrats were shown in less long shots, which benefited Democrats.

My Responses to the Authors' Editorializing

Lastly, I will cite direct quotes from the Authors' Discussion section to demonstrate blatant editorializing without any justification. Keep in mind that I disagreed with the entire discussion section, but chose only select quotes to make my point.

"Republicans emerged as the primary beneficiary of visual weight in all elections except 2000 and clearly benefited from the application of visual packaging techniques under journalistic control in all elections."
No, no data for visual weight was statistically significant. "Lip flaps" were also statistically insignificant. Only "last says" had any evidence of favoritism in 1996. Again this ignores the terribly poor sample size. Words like "clearly" are inappropriate.

"In 1996-a near-landslide election year for Bill Clinton-the networks' preferential treatment of Republicans (i.e., the Dole campaign) reached the highest level with consistent visible gaps between the two parties in terms of volume of coverage, visual weight, and visual packaging. This pattern is prominent and persistent enough to call network news coverage of the 1996 campaign biased."
Bill Clinton only received 49.2% of the vote. To call it a near-landslide is an interesting definition of landslide. Again, volume of coverage was statistically insignificant, as was visual weight, and only "last say" favored Republicans. If anything is biased, it is the authors' editorializing.

"That Clinton won both the 1992 and 1996 elections despite this unfavorable visual treatment testifies to the former president's uncanny ability to connect with viewers televisual media."
In 1992, Bill Clinton only received 43.0% of the vote. Had Ross Perot not been in the race, he more likely than not never would have been President. Moreover, what scientific evidence from this study demonstrated Bill Clinton's "uncanny ability to connect with viewers." I see no such data at all! Since the authors have decided that no data is necessary to make claims, I will assert with absolute certainty that liberal media bias was the reason why Bill Clinton won.

"[George W. Bush] enjoyed more favorable treatment via camera and editing techniques that advanced the appearance of power and leadership. He also received less unfavorable camera and editing treatment than Kerry."
I see no significant evidence whatsoever of bias in favor of George W. Bush. None. Unless the authors want to proclaim that Bob Dole helped George W. Bush by getting more "last says" in 1996, this statement is just baseless.

"What can be concluded from these [sic] data is that there is a persistent pattern of visual bias in network news coverage of presidential candidates and that this slant clearly disfavors Democrats."
The only way one could use the word, "clearly" is if the data was statistically significant. If one wants to look at trends that are statistically insignificant and meaningless, one also has to accept that Democrats received more interviews than Republican. Even so, commenting on statistically insignificant trends is not science.

"Given these findings, an important question to ask is how much visual bias is necessary to declare news coverage of elections clearly biased. Some would argue that only statistically significant differences between political parties should count. This approach seems appropriate in making assessments in one-shot studies of single election years. However, when persistent patterns emerge after examining multiple elections even if all point-by-point comparisons are not statistically significant, it seems justifiable and important to report these patterns as general tendencies. In our analysis, the overwhelming pattern of findings points to evidence of visual bias in favor of Republican candidates."
No, that is called data fudging! For most of the study there was no statistically significant data for individual years, so you spread significant years over the insignificant years to find meaningless significance. That is not how science works.

As I addressed above, Bob Dole having more "last says" that Bill Clinton is not evidence of George W. Bush having more last says than John Kerry. Either the media gave George W. Bush more last says or they did not. If it is not statistically significant at one point, you cannot combine it with other points to say all the points were statistically significant.

"Our observations of visual bias cut against the long-standing accusations of liberal media bias leveled during campaigns. Two explanations, one rooted in practice and the other in media ownership, deserve consideration here. First, because there is a long history of publicly accusing the media of liberal bias, journalists may overcompensate by remaining hesitant to present Democrats in a visually favorable light; at the same time, on account of the pressure they might be reluctant to apply unfavorable visual packaging to Republicans. Most likely, this happens at low levels of awareness and explains the subtle but persistent pattern of favoritism toward Republicans"
Your observations do no such thing. Most of the data was not statistically significant, and you ignored the insignificant data that favored Democrats (long shots and interviews). Even so, where is there evidence that this visual data was so overwhelmingly powerful that it outweighed the media's content bias, which was not captured by volume of coverage analysis? There is no data!

Given the long shelf life of the liberal bias accusation, it is indeed plausible that conservative pressure groups have succeeded in moderating the coverage that Republican candidates received.
How on Earth do you reach this conclusion from your statistically insignificant data? In 1992, there were statistically significant high camera angles harming Democrats, long shots harming Republicans, and in 1996, Bob Dole got a few more "last says." Based on that alone you managed to conclude a huge Republican media machine managed to thwart liberal media bias.

And I leave my favorite two quotes for last.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to claims about political coverage, "discussions of news media faults too often fail to distinguish criticisms based on unsystematic observation from those based on more solid evidence."
Too bad researchers have not realized that unsystematic observation is much more reliable than scientific studies, especially when researchers cite statistically insignificant data. In fact, what is the difference between unsystematic observation and commenting on statistically insignificant trends?

[M]ost academic studies of bias, which have asserted null findings, have not had a noticeable impact on public debate."
The translation of this quote is that the researchers have noticed that volume of coverage studies have tended to show no evidence of bias over the last 50 years (see above). The way the researchers claim that there is no evidence of bias is because there were null findings. Null findings are also known as, no statistical significance. Yet, the researchers for their own study want to editorialize statistically insignificant data to invent findings of which there is no evidence!

Overall, none of the exaggerated claims being made about this study have any validity, yet this study will be used by Democrats to assert without justification that there is Republicans leaning media bias.

Even worse, when the next Indiana University study comes out covering the 2008 election, it will likely conclude that the media favored Republicans as well, even though it was the most biased coverage in favor of Democrats in the history of this Country. Hey, if scientists can make statements without statistically significant data, I might as well join in the fun, and call it science too.

Nah. Couldn't Be

Is Chris Tingle suddenly seeing Obama's economic policy fiasco for what it really is?
Don't bet on it. Tommorow, he'll return to his usual Obama-lovin' self. Bank on it.

Hope and Change: The Operation Rushbo Distraction

From NewsBusters' Ed Morrissey:

If the first six weeks of the Barack Obama administration can be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: Obama fiddled with Rush Limbaugh while Wall Street burned. Politico reports that the demonization of Rush Limbaugh comes as a deliberate strategy by Obama and the Democrats, who hoodwinked people into believing that a Chicago Machine pol really wanted to change the partisan nature of politics. Starting in October, Obama relied on an old hand in attack politics to devise this strategy — and rolled it out even in the middle of an economic meltdown:

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Read all of Jonathan Martin’s report, which makes clear that Carville and Paul Begala coordinated this effort with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on their morning conference calls. Clearly, Obama wants to use his media contacts to play rough with critics through coordinated personal-attack campaigns. Martin neglects to mention, though, that Obama himself started off this attack by telling Republicans that they can’t listen to Limbaugh any longer if they want to have access to Democratic-controlled agendas on the Hill.

So far, Obama’s attack machine — and there’s no other term for it — has mostly succeeded. While the markets have lost 18% of their value in the six weeks of his leadership, all Democrats can talk about is Rush. Newspapers and media have followed suit, and so have the blogs. Usually excellent sites like The Moderate Voice and Political Machine have turned themselves into almost nothing but anti-Limbaugh sites, where Jazz Shaw’s light satire of the trend gets completely subsumed in the overwhelming focus on someone who has no direct power on policy or enforcement. Instead of focusing attention on the real policy leaders in Washington — all Democrats — whose every move has received a resounding vote of no confidence from investors, they have allowed themselves to get distracted by a deliberate strategy of misdirection originating in the highest levels of the White House.

It’s reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list, and it comes from the supposed messiah of Hope and Change.

Rush Limbaugh provides commentary, criticism, analysis, and entertainment, not political leadership, as Rush himself would attest. He has an audience of 20 million people, which makes attacks on him by people like Michael Steele and other Republicans rather stupid. Instead of dividing the Right, they would do better to act as Bobby Jindal did and find ways to unite the Right. But with Republicans out of power, this is mere sideshow. It’s a circus provided by Democrats to cover up their economic incompetence and massively ineffective spending programs. It’s also a harbinger of things to come as this administration fumbles one issue after another, as they will only need to expand the personal attacks against critics rather than respond to the criticism itself.

Operation Rushbo only succeeds if people swallow it.

Update: (AP): Boehner called it a “distraction” today too but I think that misses the point. Economic ruin will be with us long after this dust-up with Rush has blown away, which is to say, in the long run this won’t distract anyone from anything. What the Democrats are really trying to do is rebrand the GOP. They’re keenly attuned to that sort of thing, as we were reminded again just yesterday. I also wouldn’t call what they’re doing to Rush an “attack.” It’s more like promotion, albeit promotion for their own ends. In fact, if there’s anyone who benefits unambiguously from all this, it’s Rush himself. The Democrats might miscalculate in overestimating his supposed unpopularity, and the GOP leadership will go on squirming at having to defend or reject the idea of wanting Obama to fail, but all Limbaugh has to worry about is an expanding audience. His show has never seemed so vital as it does right now.

Update: (Ed): We’re going to agree to disagree. I think this article makes the case quite clear that this is an attack policy devised by experienced hands from the Clinton administration at attack politics. Whether that “rebrands” the GOP is probably secondary; as Carville himself once famously noted, “Your opponent can’t hit back when you have your fist in his face.” So much for changing the tone in Washington.

Perhaps the Democrats and their followers should listen to one of their own. Susan Estrich says, play with the bull...

And although his reasoning is ludicris, HuffPo's Peter Daou also warns about rallying the Conservative base around Limbaugh.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


O.k. I don't know who this dude is (sorry, I don't live on YouTube) but, you know, he makes a lot of his caffine-induced rant. He gets them all. D.L. Hughley (another no nothing rascist celebrity) the Dems, the "haters" (followers of the Dems) and every sheep in between.

A good historical perspective (and truth) on slavery. "As if black people were the only ones to ever be enslaved on this planet in the history of mankind."
Good man. I've been arguing that fact for years.

And another about the Fascist Doctrine (among other things)

"Professional victim"...priceless.

And another...I can't stop.

You know, throughout all these videos, he covered a lot of ground. And he's right about every...single...word.

I like this guy. But, who is he and why wasn't he at CPAC?

Republicans-Take Heed from Josey Wales

By the American Thinker's C. Edmund Wright:

Rush Job: Inside the Dems' Limbaugh Plan

I know President Obama had a prominent left-wing radio host smack dab in the middle of the front row (to the immediate left of Helen Thomas no less-Golly, what an honor!) I know he's giving liberal journalists cabinet positions, but how long has Obama been setting up this Rush Gate thing?

How long has CNN been denying that their on-air "personalities" aren't in the tank for Obama? (or the Clinton's for that matter) For how long have we read the complete and utter lies on their face, when they attempt to persuade everyone that they are "objective?"

Well, a long time now. But in this case, the plot to destroy the Republican party from within by labeling Rush Limbaugh the "real leader of the Republican party," hopefully to spur enough infighting and "confusion" within the party, itself has been exposed.

And Rush may be right about this, that all the Dems are doing is raising his profile. Who would I pick to win this fight? I think it's obvious. It'll take the whole Democrat party, and then some, to beat this man. He's done it before.

I mean, when has this man been wrong?

So let the pitiful denials start!

Iran is Spreading the Love

Iranian leaders, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in particular, are calling on Middle East Muslims to "join the "Palestinian" "resistance" against Israel."

Did you notice some of those words? "
Zionist criminals," "cancerous tumor?"
Can't you just feel the love and tolerance just oozing out of the conveyors of the religion of peace?

What does Iran have to do with Gaza anyway? I mean besides arming and training Hamas?

Plus, they're threatening in a oh, so obvious way...again. Um, where's the MSM on this one? Oh right, they collectively hate Israelis. Now it all makes sense.

In a related story, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton also wants to impress her Iranian allies in puting all the blame for the world's problems on those nasty, sneaky Jooooooos.

So, if and when Iran "wipes Israel off the map," what is the world's media going to say? I bet something like, "Oh, they must have spontaneously combusted. Oh well."

Michael Yon Essay-Part 1

Love him or, not so much, This man tells it straight.

On 24 February 2009, President Barack Obama said during his speech: “The United States of America Does Not Torture.”

The President’s words were cast LIVE, around the globe, and I was literally on the other side of the world, a dozen time zones away watching it on CNN. I made a small entry on the website with a few thoughts, unleashing a torrent of criticism, which was expected; I don’t write to please, but in an attempt to deliver truth about the war.

Anytime I deliver bad news, such as back in 2006 that we were losing the war in Afghanistan while nearly everyone “knew” we were winning, there results an avalanche of criticism and insults, along with a decline in readership and support. But that’s the way it goes. If a writer wants to make money, he should avoid truth and tell people what they want to hear. Yet to win the war, tell the truth.

Today in 2009, we are shipping another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan because we are still losing, and in fact our casualties this year will likely be double what they were last year. But there certainly were a lot of journalists and bloggers out there during 2006 who were making folks feel good about Afghanistan. Those were often the same people who quibbled over the definition of “civil war” in Iraq, even while Iraq was falling apart in 2006. Many people were politically charged to avoid the term “civil war,” and at least partly as a consequence we nearly lost the Iraq war. Today they quibble over the definition of the word “torture,” and probably wonder what in the world happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Judging by public commentary and private communications, many people now assume I am a fan of President Obama because I support his anti-torture stand. Yet in fact, during probably dozens of radio interviews last year, I made clear to millions of Americans that I was hoping that Senator McCain would take the Oval Office. McCain demonstrated better understanding of the wars.

Other folks said they have never seen me talk or write about torture, though I have probably done so on dozens of occasions, again to millions of Americans, long before the elections, and probably before I ever knew the name “Obama.”
Had President George Bush, or Secretary Rumsfeld said, “The United States of America Does Not Torture,” bets are on that those same people who reflexively attacked when Obama took an anti-torture stand, would have cheered and agreed had Bush or Rumsfeld delivered the same message. Under Obama they seem to see anti-torture as too soft, though under Bush they might have viewed the same position with great national pride. An unequivocal stand against torture might have been viewed as undeniable evidence of moral rectitude and great internal strength. It is fair to ask, Why, if we did not torture prisoners during the first part of the war (which is just getting started), did we not come out and state, “The United States of America Does Not Torture”?

To be sure, I believe there is one circumstance when the United States should reserve the right to torture, which will be explained later.
While Bush was President, millions of people around the world wanted us to lose the Iraq war, apparently because they hated George Bush. It was also obvious to me, during periods between war stints while travelling inside the United States, Europe and Asia, that many people relished the idea of so many Americans being killed in Iraq, and the idea that Iraqis were dying, because they hated George Bush. Most of the American “anti-war” people were not “anti-war” at all. If they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They were anti-George Bush. And today we have a similar species of thought, only it’s anti-Obama from some of the very people who previously complained about the anti-Bush reflex.

When it comes to Iraq, AfPak and torture, truth beyond politics is incredibly rare. In fact, last year when I started calling the AfPak war the “AfPak” war, there was a volume of flak for that, yet today the administration has adopted the same term. The fact is, there is no “Afghanistan” war per se. Again, politics eclipses reality. Rock, paper, scissors, POLITICS. Politics covers rock, tosses paper out the window and uses scissors to cut up anyone who stands in the way.

Back during my war reporting of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and now 2009, one week people would accuse me of being a Bush supporter. Next week people would say I was a Bush-hating liberal. It seemed that most such comments were made after someone read a single dispatch, or perhaps a single sentence in a dispatch, and then decided to comment. This week they say I am an Obama agent and that I have displayed my “true colors.” Bets are on that it won’t be long until I write something from the battlefield that convinces people I am on the Republican payroll.

When I talked about my intention to sue Michael Moore for copyright infringement, there were probably thousands of comments on the net that my motivations were coming strictly from a right-wing political agenda, but those comments fail to account that I also stood ground on the same issue with the U.S. Army, TIME Magazine, ABC, and many others. I still intend to file suit against Mr. Moore, and it will be the first lawsuit I have ever filed.

When I am actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, hanging by an internet thread, I rarely have an idea what the President is saying, and so have little idea if my words are supporting or undermining the office. War is a full-time job, writing is a full-time job, and photography is a part-time job. So that’s two full-time jobs and a part-time. There is no time to pay attention to what the people at home are saying.

It is perhaps just a matter of time before millions of people, many of them Americans, who previously wanted to win the AfPak and Iraq wars, will want to see those places go sour, because they hate President Obama. Schadenfreude is alive and well.
While in Afghanistan and Iraq this year, I’ll support President Obama in the same fashion that I supported President Bush: Some days in favour, some days not.

Now let’s talk about torture.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

The Doctrine of the Left-A Fictional Account of the Right

I was listening to the Michael Savage show as I was getting up tonight to go to work and he was telling his listeners about the author and Communist (Trotsky) sympathizer, Sinclair Lewis and his 1935 book, It Can't Happen Here, a book set in the Great Depression that describes what would happen if a right-wing (read: fascist) government took over America. It is a work of fiction and was meant by Sinclair to scare people about the "unconstitutional" and "unpatriotic" inner dealings of the right. It was also made into a play and later, in 1968, a television series that, at the time, was decried by critics (such as TV Guide's Cleveland Amory) as preposterous, since "Americans would never allow the events and situations in the film to occur." Later, the American fascists were re-cast as anthropological extraterrestrials, taking the story into the realm of science fiction. The new, re-cast story was the mini-series V, which premiered on May 3, 1983.

It is in reality a book of propaganda by, as said, a disciple of Leon Trotsky, the man, along with Joseph Stalin who initiated the written works of Carl Marx (The Communist Manifesto) into reality. In the process, dooming millions of people to lives of poverty, oppression and death.

Savage then made note of "15 Points of Victory for the Forgotten Man" that Sinclair said would take place if a right-wing government took control of the country.
In the light of President Obama's socialistic implementations on America recently (and a whole lot more of frightening ones to come in the next four years) it is very interesting to see how communists and socialists view the world and how the project their own twisted views on the rest of us.

(1) All finance in the country, including banking, insurance, stocks and bonds and mortgages, shall be under the absolute control of a Federal Central Bank, owned by the government and conducted by a Board appointed by the President, which Board shall, without need of recourse to Congress for legislative authorization, be empowered to make all regulations governing finance. Thereafter, as soon as may be practicable, this said Board shall consider the nationalization and government-ownership, for the Profit of the Whole People, of all mines, oilfields, water power, public utilities, transportation, and communication.

(2) The President shall appoint a commission, equally divided between manual workers, employers, and representatives of the Public, to determine which Labor Unions are qualified to represent the Workers; and report to the Executive, for legal action, all pretended labor organizations, whether “Company Unions,” or “Red Unions,” controlled by Communists and the so-called “Third International.” The duly recognized Unions shall be constituted Bureaus of the Government, with power of decision in all labor disputes. Later, the same investigation and official recognition shall be extended to farm organizations. In this elevation of the position of the Worker, it shall be emphasized that the League of Forgotten Men is the chief bulwark against the menace of destructive and un-American Radicalism.

(3) In contradistinction to the doctrines of Red Radicals, with their felonious expropriation of the arduously acquired possessions which insure to aged persons their security, this League and Party will guarantee Private Initiative and the Right to Private Property for all time.

(4) Believing that only under God Almighty, to Whom we render all homage, do we Americans hold our vast Power, we shall guarantee to all persons absolute freedom of religious worship, provided, however, that no atheist, agnostic, believer in Black Magic, nor any Jew who shall refuse to swear allegiance to the New Testament, nor any person of any faith who refuses to take the Pledge to the Flag, shall be permitted to hold any public office or to practice as a teacher, professor, lawyer, judge, or as a physician, except in the category of Obstetrics.

(5) Annual net income per person shall be limited to $500,000. No accumulated fortune may at any one time exceed $3,000,000 per person. No one person shall, during his entire lifetime, be permitted to retain an inheritance or various inheritances in total exceeding $2,000,000. All incomes or estates in excess of the sums named shall be seized by the Federal Government for use in Relief and in Administrative expenses.

(6) Profit shall be taken out of War by seizing all dividends over and above 6 per cent that shall be received from the manufacture, distribution, or sale, during Wartime, of all arms, munitions, aircraft, ships, tanks, and all other things directly applicable to warfare, as well as from food, textiles, and all other supplies furnished to the American or to any allied army.

(7) Our armaments and the size of our military and naval establishments shall be consistently enlarged until they shall equal, but—since this country has no desire for foreign conquest of any kind—not surpass, in every branch of the forces of defense, the martial strength of any other single country or empire in the world. Upon inauguration, this League and Party shall make this its first obligation, together with the issuance of a firm proclamation to all nations of the world that our armed forces are to be maintained solely for the purpose of insuring world peace and amity.

(8) Congress shall have the sole right to issue money and immediately upon our inauguration it shall at least double the present supply of money, in order to facilitate the fluidity of credit.

(9) We cannot too strongly condemn the un-Christian attitude of certain otherwise progressive nations in their discriminations against the Jews, who have been among the strongest supporters of the League, and who will continue to prosper and to be recognized as fully Americanized, though only so long as they continue to support our ideals.

(10) All Negroes shall be prohibited from voting, holding public office, practicing law, medicine, or teaching in any class above the grade of grammar school, and they shall be taxed 100 per cent of all sums in excess of $10,000 per family per year which they may earn or in any other manner receive. In order, however, to give the most sympathetic aid possible to all Negroes who comprehend their proper and valuable place in society, all such colored persons, male or female, as can prove that they have devoted not less than forty-five years to such suitable tasks as domestic service, agricultural labor, and common labor in industries, shall at the age of sixty-five be permitted to appear before a special Board, composed entirely of white persons, and upon proof that while employed they have never been idle except through sickness, they shall be recommended for pensions not to exceed the sum of $500.00 per person per year, nor to exceed $700.00 per family. Negroes shall, by definition, be persons with at least one sixteenth colored blood.

(11) Far from opposing such high-minded and economically sound methods of the relief of poverty, unemployment, and old age as the EPIC plan of the Hon. Upton Sinclair, the “Share the Wealth” and “Every Man a King” proposals of the late Hon. Huey Long to assure every family $5000 a year, the Townsend plan, the Utopian plan, Technocracy, and all competent schemes of unemployment insurance, a Commission shall immediately be appointed by the New Administration to study, reconcile, and recommend for immediate adoption the best features in these several plans for Social Security, and the Hon. Messrs. Sinclair, Townsend, Eugene Reed, and Howard Scott are herewith invited to in every way advise and collaborate with that Commission.

(12) All women now employed shall, as rapidly as possible, except in such peculiarly feminine spheres of activity as nursing and beauty parlors, be assisted to return to their incomparably sacred duties as home-makers and as mothers of strong, honorable future Citizens of the Commonwealth.

(13) Any person advocating Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism, advocating refusal to enlist in case of war, or advocating alliance with Russia in any war whatsoever, shall be subject to trial for high treason, with a minimum penalty of twenty years at hard labor in prison, and a maximum of death on the gallows, or other form of execution which the judges may find convenient.

(14) All bonuses promised to former soldiers of any war in which America has ever engaged shall be immediately paid in full, in cash, and in all cases of veterans with incomes of less than $5,000.00 a year, the formerly promised sums shall be doubled.

(15) Congress shall, immediately upon our inauguration, initiate amendments to the Constitution providing (a), that the President shall have the authority to institute and execute all necessary measures for the conduct of the government during this critical epoch; (b), that Congress shall serve only in an advisory capacity, calling to the attention of the President and his aides and Cabinet any needed legislation, but not acting upon same until authorized by the President so to act; and©, that the Supreme Court shall immediately have removed from its jurisdiction the power to negate, by ruling them to be unconstitutional or by any other judicial action, any or all acts of the President, his duly appointed aides, or Congress.

Starting to sound familiar? No? It will.


  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {