Saturday, July 31, 2010


SWAT raid on Columbia, MO family just one more reason to end 'no-knock' raids (and 'war on drugs')

Kurt Hofmann - St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

Back in February, a Columbia, Missouri family was subjected to a brutal home invasion, in which both their dogs were shot (one fatally), and one family member abducted. Their assailants? A police SWAT team.

A police SWAT team entered Whitworth’s residence around 8:30 p.m. suspecting a large amount of marijuana at the location, police spokeswoman Officer Jessie Haden said. SWAT members encountered a pit bull upon entry, held back and then fatally shot the dog, which officers said was acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner.

Whitworth was arrested, and his wife and 7-year-old son were present during the SWAT raid, Haden said. A second dog, which Whitworth’s attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed.

"Oh," you say--"police making a drug bust--that's different." Is it? The arrest was for a "small amount of marijuana"--enough for a misdemeanor. For that, two dogs were shot, a family terrorized, and a man hauled to jail? More on that story, with video, can be seen here.

That isn't, of course, the worst thing that can happen in these no-knock "War on Drugs" raids (which tend to take a heavy toll on dogs). Sometimes, the resident--not even guilty of the "crime" of having a forbidden plant product--is killed, when she, terrified of the home invaders, attempts to fight them off.

A 92-year-old woman was shot to death Tuesday after she fired at three narcotics officers trying to serve a warrant at her house, officials said.

Neighbors and relatives said it must have been a case of mistaken identity. Police said they had the right address.

As it turns out, there were never any drugs at the house, until the police planted some, to try to cover up their heinous crime.

There were no drugs.

There were no cameras that the officers had claimed was the reason for the no-knock warrant.

Just Johnston, handcuffed and bleeding on her living room floor.

That is when the officers took it to another level. Three baggies of marijuana were retrieved from the trunk of the car and planted in Johnston's basement.

Another possible outcome is for the resident, again not knowing who his attackers are, kills one or more.

According to interviews since the incident, Frederick says when he looked toward his front door, he saw an intruder trying to enter through one of the lower door panels. So Frederick fired his gun.

The intruders were from the Chesapeake Police Department. They had come to serve a drug warrant. Frederick's bullet struck Detective Jarrod Shivers in the side, killing him. Frederick was arrested and has spent the last six weeks in a Chesapeake jail.

He has been charged with first degree murder. Paul Ebert, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, has indicated he may elevate the charge to capital murder, which would enable the state to seek the death penalty.

Mr. Frederick, who was another who had a small amount of marijuana, was eventually spared the capital murder charge and death penalty, but he is in prison for first degree manslaughter. Again--this all came about over possession of plant matter.

Still another possible outcome is the one portrayed in the photo--and the one that ensnares people like Mr. Frederick--the people smashing their way into the house are only pretending to be "upholding the law."

The victims told police the two men were wearing tactical vests. One vest had the word "Sheriff" on the front and the other had the words "US Marshal," according to Sgt. Michael Iannone of the Elk Grove Police Department.

Four people were inside the home at the time. They told police the men forced them to the floor and handcuffed the mother and her two sons. A nanny in the home was forced to show the men where all the valuables were kept. Nobody was hurt.

At least the outcome was far better than in this "raid."

That's not to deny that sometimes real cops do raid the right house, and catch a real drug dealer, with no casualties. Wonderful--someone illegally selling plant parts is going to prison. I feel safer already.

The War on Guns is intimately joined to the "War on Drugs," and they're both really the War on Liberty.



America is headed for a bloody French style revolution in the next few years. The reasons are many, but the main cause is a stupid, corrupt, degenerate and Leftist ruling class of psychopaths like Comrade Kerry who have seized power from the American People and has oppressed them for decades. I predict in the next few years a Second American Revolution will break out led by an unemployed, poverty stricken, homeless, and radicalized army of the middle class that will attack the wealthy homes and public offices of the New Aristocrats with the same ruthless zeal of the French Revolutionists. If history is a teacher the fate of the American ruling class will be summary execution, imprisonment and exile.

"To arms, Citizens! Form your battalions! Let's March!"

The Ruling Class Tosses Americans Overboard

By Geoffrey P. Hunt
The saga of Senator John Kerry's $ 7 million sailing yacht tied up on the Newport waterfront in the tax haven of Rhode Island proved again how adept Democrats are at spending other people's money. This time the $7 million was presumably spent from his wife's inherited fortune.

But the larger story here isn't about tax havens. And it isn't about hypocrisy. And it's far less about trophy wives with trust funds. It's not even about being a lifelong leech working in government jobs sucking the blood out of beleaguered taxpayers. It's about the increasing distance and disconnects between the governing class and everybody else. It's about abandoning American workers and deliberately staying out of touch with and out of reach from everyday people.

$7 million is a lot of dough. Easily more than twice what the vast majority of Americans will earn over their entire lifetimes. And those modest earning prospects are slipping away as two out of ten Americans of working age are now either unemployed or underemployed.

Pay no attention to Sen Kerry's hollow support of US job creation. I wonder why in May he co-sponsored the vacuous Senate bill "Honoring the Entrepreneurial Spirit of Small Business": . Maybe he was feeling guilty for having completely dismissed American boatyards and instead taken delivery three months earlier of the 72 foot Isabel, built in New Zealand.

I also wonder how his aiding and abetting outsourcing, shamelessly steering clear of American labor, is going down with his pals at the AFL-CIO who endorsed him for president in 2004. No doubt at least half of Isabel's $7 million price tag was labor requiring some 70,000 hours of mostly highly skilled work.. That translates into 35 to 50 boatbuilders, carpenters, mechanics, machinists, sailmakers, technicians, varnishers and riggers. Couldn't this work have been done at a premier custom boat builder in Maine, say Hinckley's in Southwest Harbor or Brooklin Boatyard?

Or if he was stuck on something more upscale, why not Hodgdon's Yachts in East Boothbay? Five generations of Hodgdons have built the finest luxury sailing yachts in the world as the cold molded 124 foot Antonisa and 98 foot Windcrest can attest. Hodgdon's has at least 35 of the finest boatbuilders to be found anywhere on the globe. But not good enough for John Kerry.

How about Goetz Boats in Bristol, Rhode Island, a mere 20 minute Cadillac Escalade SUV ride from Newport? Goetz has built nine Americas Cup boats. Goetz's most recent construction is the 83 foot Highland Fling a carbon fiber luxury racing jewel. Not good enough for John Kerry.

All too pedestrian for John Kerry. Anyone can get a boat built in Maine or Rhode Island. But none of that would have the glitter and cachet of built-in-New Zealand.

Look, John Kerry and his wife can spend their tax-free municipal bond income anywhere they please. But the prospect of a US Senator splurging on a $7 million personal pleasure craft built halfway around the globe while Americans suffer through the worst economic catastrophe since the 1930s is not just unseemly -- it's nauseating. Displays of this kind of elitist condescension and disdain for the everyday people were once upon a time reserved for the likes of the French aristocracy before 1789.

Equally obscene is the reported millions being spent on the Chelsea Clinton wedding. At least the Clintons had the good sense to have Chelsea tie the knot in the US. And caterers, wedding planners, dress makers, florists, chefs, wait staff and dishwashers, landscape workers and porta-potty contractors all along the NY State Hudson River estates will enjoy good fortune at least for a couple of days. Unlike the hopelessly out-of-work boat builders further Downeast who are now resorting to raking blueberries and taking short term stints as deckhands on clean-up barges in the Gulf of Mexico.

Of course it is entirely possible that Kerry had nothing to do with the yacht Isabel, except measuring chocks on the foredeck to store his windsurfing board.

And while the governing class arrogance and alienation from everyday Americans is worsening, the bastions of big government keep ever expanding. The Capitol district in Washington DC is a concrete berm and steel barrier enclave with few hotel vacancies and virtually full employment. Unsupervised staffers and unbridled regulators daily impose thousands of pages of rules on us. Even presumably free market stalwarts inside American companies are convinced that Washington is the center of the universe.

The American electorate has always been wary of decision makers beyond their existential line of sight. So were the founders declaring in the last amendment in the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the courts today won't reaffirm the Tenth Amendment, the voters will. And sooner or later, the John Kerrys of the governing class will be the ones cast adrift.


Friday, July 30, 2010


My One Question for WaPo Regarding The Journolist

More from The Daily Caller today, detailing the political connections on the Journolist, where Obama operatives, Democratic political strategists, and liberal media types mixed:
Despite its name, membership in the liberal online community Journolist wasn’t limited to journalists. Present among the bloggers, reporters and editors were a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans. Some left government to join Journolist. Others took the opposite route. A few contributed to Journolist from their perches in politics. At times, it became difficult to tell who was supposed to be covering policy and who was trying to make it.

Two of the administration’s chief economic advisors, Jared Bernstein, the vice president’s top economist, and Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, were members of Journolist until they began working officially for Obama.

Ilan Goldenberg, now an advisor on Middle East policy at the Pentagon, was a member until he joined the administration. Moira Whelan left Journolist to work at the Department of Homeland Security .

Anne-Marie Slaughter left to work at the State Department. Former Journolist member Ben Brandzel is now a top staffer at Organizing for America, the political arm of the Obama White House.

Josh Orton, a former spokesman for Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NM)[sic - should be NV], became Obama’s deputy director of new media during the 2008 presidential campaign. After the election, he joined Journolist.

Brent Bozell has 20 questions for The Washington Post about its knowledge of and involvement with the Journolist. I have just one question:
In which Washington, D.C. area parking garage will the entire Journolist archive be handed over to us?
-------------------------------------------- Related Posts: Journolist Ruins Chuckie T's Sleep Pattern Now I Am A Hero, Too Journolist Trig Emails - All About The Story Line


RUSH: TIME Magazine on their website by the putrid Michael Grunwald, he's the writer of the story: "The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- President Obama has called the BP oil spill 'the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced,' and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the 'Catastrophe Along the Gulf Coast,' while CBS, Fox and MSNBC slap 'Disaster in the Gulf' chryons on all their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted the spill was an 'environmental catastrophe.' The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill -- he calls it 'the leak' -- is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh, writes the putrid Michael Grunwald.

Well, the next paragraph begins this way. Well, the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush "has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities. ... Yes, the spill killed birds -- but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins -- but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes ... but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year." So it's convoluted piece, ladies and gentlemen, but does point out that the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has a point, that it's all been exaggerated.

"Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who's working for a spill response contractor, says 'there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good -- I think they lied about the size of the spill -- but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts,' says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP's spill response funds. 'There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.' The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and degradable..." something I said within the first week of the spill. "...which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped." It's not surprising to me. It was predicted by me. I didn't have to predict it because I knew this would be true.




I was a career soldier in the U.S. Army Security Agency (USASA)and after 1977 in the Intelligence & Security Command (USAINSCOM) at Ft. Meade, Maryland and other assignments (1966 to 1986, ELINT, Top Secret clearance). I find it extremely hard to believe that a lowly PFC E-3 with a discipline record would be allowed access to such a vast amount of classified information and apparently unsupervised.

Another factor pointing to an Obama Regime connection is the fact that all classified information is strictly based on a “Need To Know.” For example, when I was stationed at Ft. Meade in the ELINT section - not only did I not know what the guys next door were doing - I didn’t know what half the guys in my own office were working on. If I had developed a case of “Nosey Parker” and started asking questions about what classified projects my friends were working on, or signed out documents from the vault not related to ELINT, I would be standing tall in front of the S-2 security officer explaining why I should not be sent to Ft. Leavenworth making little rocks out of big rocks for the next twenty years.

I believe that Manning is a Patsy for a “Mr. Big” somewhere high up on the food in the White House... maybe Comrade Obama himnself. I’ll wager that Manning was given mucho dinero for his treason and promised that if caught he’d get off.

This affair really smells of a set-up... how much so and in how many ways we may never know. With such a large number of documents leaked, I even question how many of them are genuine. When you have the fascist Obama Regime in power, as we do, anything seems possible because the goal is to further The Agenda.



Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome

SPDS is another symptom of left wing insanity. Over at The Lowest Standard today there’s another of the typically hate driven attempts to discredit Sarah Palin that one finds all over the leftist blogosphere. (on the basis of such irrational fear, could we start a new word-? “Palinophobia”) Sourced from one of the usual bigoted propaganda sites The Huffington Post (I mean, how dumb are these people to think they’re going to get objective reporting from the Huffington Post?) the claim is that an endorsement from Sarah Palin is a negative to any Republican campaigner. As usual, because these dumbarses only ever have left wing information sources, it’s simple to shatter this thesis into a million pieces.

In five minutes searching I was able to discover information that completely contradicts the Lowest Standard’s claims. In fact I found some of the information on left wing sites. National Public Radio says this-

“Palin’s late-in-the-game endorsement of former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel shook up that state’s crowded GOP primary for governor. Here is evidence of Palin Power: In early July polling, Handel was trailing far behind the race’s frontrunner, state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, and was struggling for second-place position with another runner, former Congressman Nathan Deal.

When the votes were counted Tuesday night, however, Handel was a big winner — finishing in first when a substantial lead over Deal, who she is expected to face in an August 10 runoff. The frontrunner of two weeks ago, Oxendine, was training far behind. What made the difference for Handel?

She shot up in the polls after Palin released a pro-Handel statement that read: “Though considered an underdog candidate (more power to her!), this pro-life, pro-Constitutionalist with a can-do attitude and a record of fighting for ethics in government is ready to serve in the Governor’s Office.”

In fact, Handel was more moderate than some of the other candidates, but the approval of the Alaskan was enough to sway Georgia Republicans like Carolyn Draper, a 67-year-old retiree who told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It influences me. I am a very conservative person and I have very conservative values, and I think Sarah Palin does, too.” Draper is not alone. “The Palin endorsement definitely helped,” Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the surveys on the race for Georgia newspapers, told the Journal-Constitution.”

On another lefty site, the New York Magazine we get the following heady stuff-

Palin Endorsement More Helpful Than Obama Endorsement

Bad news for President Obama in a new Quinnipiac poll out this morning. Not only does his presidency get its lowest numbers in the poll to date, but as we approach the midterm elections, it seems that Obama’s endorsement would taint his fellow Democrats running for office more than help them. Only 12 percent of voters say that Obama campaigning for a candidate makes them more likely to vote for that candidate — that includes only 28 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Independents — while 30 percent of all voters, and Independents specifically, say it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate.

In other words, some Democrats may want Obama to stay away this campaign season in the same way Republicans used to avoid President Bush near the end of his presidency. Even Sarah Palin, whose favorability is far below Obama’s, nevertheless wields more influence: 16 percent of voters, including 15 percent of Independents, say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for whom Palin campaigns.

The Lower Standard is merely an echo chamber for Marxist propaganda, and of course they hate Palin intensely. Just a sick bunch of Palinophobes with half the credibility of Joseph Goebbells.



NAACP Criticizes Non-Existent Tea Party Racism; Silent on Debasement of Women

As a political music blogger with no political credentials and horrible musical taste, it was a huge deal when I found the very first straw-man Daily Kos rebuttal to an article of mine. According to the author “jethrock,” I hopped on “the false narrative that reverse racism exists and scary Black people hate you (if you’re white) and are out to get you.”


Note the progressive buzzwords: “reverse racism,” which I never mentioned and is a silly concept (racism is racism, no matter from whom), and “scary Black people,” which I never mentioned either, yet seems to be the default spin thrown at Andrew Breitbart for pointing out racism in the NAACP. The point of the article was that comments and actions which would have drawn the ire of the NAACP if made by white entertainers (can you imagine the response if Lady Gaga made a video where she wore a pointed hood and rallied a mob with torches and lead pipes?) were ignored when they were made by black entertainers—entertainers lauded at the Image awards.

As some in the comments suggested, however, these entertainers cannot be racist, because racism is not about race but about power; only whites can be racist because only whites have the power to oppress. Ridiculous as that is, let’s just assume that it’s correct for the sake of argument. So if it’s not wrong for Ice Cube to refer to white people as his “enemy” and to rap about shooting white people– since as a black man, he cannot oppress a white man—is it wrong for Ice Cube (an Image award recipient) to rap, “Fuck and get up is how I do them stank hoes”? Regardless of race, the Left cannot deny that men are still in a position to oppress women (just ask about Clarence Thomas), and the NAACP has been woefully silent on the open advocacy of misogyny and sexual violence amongst its Image award nominees and winners.

Discussing sexism in rap is nothing new; I won’t linger. But do check out this analysis by Edward G. Armstrong. It’s old, but it’s thorough. And there are a few egregious examples to focus on: if you can stomach it, read the lyrics to “Giving up the Nappy Dugout” by Ice Cube, and keep in mind that all of this Polanski-esque perversion is a fantasy involving a 17-year old (he states, “I know she’s a minor and it is illegal, but the bitch is worse than Vanessa del Rio”). Also note that, with many of the examples I gave of Image awards being given to entertainers with racist lyrics, their nominations were for other works of art. However, in 2002, Ja Rule won an Image award for his song “Living It Up,” which states, “Half the hoes hate them, half of them love me / The ones that hate me only hate me ‘cause they ain’t fucked me.” And finally, consider the case of Nelly’s 2008 song “Tip Drill,” whose music video features the artist sliding a credit card through a woman’s buttocks.

The NAACP has said nothing to criticize the debasement of women in these songs. However, have no fear. They really hit it out of the park with that Hallmark card that warns black holes that a recent graduate is going to be successful in life. They’ve got this violence against women thing down pat.

But criticizing rap is old hat, you may say. That’s just part and parcel of a subculture that has nothing to do with the NAACP (despite their Image awards given to woman-objectifying rappers). Touche, progressives. I submit to your superior logic. But what about Image award recipients and hosts whose sexism has been ignored by the NAACP?

D.L. Hughley, the 2008 host of the Image Awards, said to Maryline Blackburn, who beat out Sarah Palin for Miss Alaska, discussed Palin’s performance in the 2008 Vice Presidential debate on his CNN show. When Blackburn said Palin became a good public speaker through beauty pageants, Hughley suggested, “If you had a thong and couldn’t talk, you would still get my vote.” Black commentator tells a black woman her underwear is more important than her thoughts: no comment from the NAACP.

Spike Lee was honored with the Hall of Fame award at the 2003 Images. Lee’s depiction of women has long been considered misogynistic, from his exploitative nude scene with Rosie Perez in Do the Right Thing (her words, not mine) and his 2004 film She Hate Me which depicted a throng of lesbian couples paying the film’s protagonist 10 grand to impregnate them (and not through clinical sperm donation).

And, you’ll love this: in 2001, Bill Clinton– the textbook case of a politician using sexual harassment to control women—was given the President’s Award.

Silence on racism, awards given to racists. Silence on sexism, awards given to sexists. Accusing non-racists and non-sexists of racism and sexism with no evidence whatsoever. This is the modern NAACP. How does this fulfill their titular goal of advancing people of color?



Islamic Death Threat: "Make Dua For Pamela Geller To Be Executed"

There they go again...........devout Muslims making my point for me, yet again. Report this would-be murderer to the authorities, please. I am so sure the Obama administration is working hard to keep folks like me safe. (/sarc tag off.)

Greetings from the religion of peace and love...............this is what Islam teaches its followers. Fact.

Via StarCMC

Big file so below the fold:

Islamic geller



Obama's Mean Streak

By Ed Lasky
Barack Obama seems to have a pattern of using ceremonial or stately events as opportunities to ambush and humiliate people. This behavior is unpresidential and reveals a vindictive streak that makes Richard Nixon look like Mister Rogers.

A few examples of Obama's taking pleasure in administering public pain to others:

During the State of the Union Address, he chose to direct his ire at the justices of the Supreme Court, located in the front rows. After the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the First Amendment regarding political speech, Barack Obama famously chose to dress down the black-clad justices before the entire nation -- miscomprehending the law and the ruling in a fit of (un)presidential petulance. The embarrassing spectacle was prompted by a view that the court's ruling may make it easier for opponents of the president and Democrats to make their views known to the public.

Regardless of Obama's pique, it was wrong on so many levels that it earned a rebuke from the Supreme Court historian, who had enthusiastically voted for him. The noted historian said it "was really unusual in my mind to see the President going after the Supreme Court in such a forum." That is change for you. He predicted that justices may refuse to attend in the future because "you don't go to be insulted. I can't see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the President."

Their appearance was a mark of respect for the government of the United States, broken into three branches but united in the goal of helping fellow Americans. Barack Obama did not reciprocate the respect -- and demeaned himself (though his narcissism and his cheering section entourage would shield him from such self-reflection) and the dignity of the office by needlessly ambushing the most august institution of the land.

He seems to have a penchant for ambushing financial executives, too -- or people he calls "fat cats" -- after he cashes their campaign checks. But he does like to tag people with labels.

While purportedly holding a meeting to work with financial executives to help stabilize financial markets, Barack Obama could not resist taunting them with the threat that "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." That was not why they came to a meeting supposedly called to work together to resolve problems in the financial sector.

He did the same with doctors, though. He co-opted the American Medical Association to get them on board for ObamaCare and then blasted doctors for, among other sins, taking kids' tonsils out because doctors are greedy.

While meeting with a Democrat wavering on casting a yes vote on ObamaCare, he chose not to engage him with reasons, but instead belittled him in front of others by telling him, "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." Was this form of public emasculation really necessary? No...but Obama has the itch, and it must be scratched.

He chose to snub a variety of foreign leaders, including then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with whom he denied a diplomatic meeting during a visit (a snub that may have hurt Brown politically at home). Also, Obama walked out of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have dinner with his family -- and refused a photo-op, joint news conference, or proper welcome, to boot. Both were democratic leaders, yet Obama bows to dictators such as the Saudi King and has a hug for the thug from Caracas. The ambushing of Netanyahu may have had a goal of also hurting him with voters in Israel, who treasure their relationship with America. The ambush did not work. Israelis don't like being ambushed -- they have had plenty of experience with such treatment. The public rallied to Netanyahu after the disgraceful treatment meted out to him by Barack Obama.

Can we forget the lack of graciousness when Obama told John McCain during the health care summit that he convened, supposedly in the spirit of comity, that "the election is over"?

Was it necessary to allude that racism led Boston policemen to confront Obama's friend, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, over what appeared to be a breaking and entering? For all the nation to see, he slurred Boston policemen as racists. Why?

In the hands of this president, the bully pulpit is used not to persuade and convince, but to bully into a public pulp those he considers his foes. At a groundbreaking for a car battery plant funded by "stimulus money" that was located in the district of Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra (who opposed the stimulus), Obama could not resist the urge to try to humiliate Hoekstra, who also was at the opening.

There are some folks who want to go back -- who think we should return to the policies that helped to lead to this recession," Obama said later in his comments honoring a new advanced battery factory being built by the company LG Chem. "Some made the political calculation that it's better to obstruct than lend a hand. They said no to the tax cuts, they said no to small business loans, they said no to clean energy projects. It doesn't stop them from coming to ribbon cuttings -- but that's OK."

This was not the first time he chose to turn a celebration into an ambush, a party into a shooting gallery.

The president was flying to Peoria to appear with the CEO of Caterpillar at a plant. Obama told reporters that he had spoken to the CEO, who he said assured him that he was going to rehire laid off employees as soon as the stimulus bill was passed. This was a surprise to the CEO, who, after the Obama appearance at the plant was over, was asked by the reporters about this so-called pledge. He stumbled over the issue -- who wants to publicly call the president a liar? But the CEO said that Obama's statement was not true, and there were no plans to rehire people. He was ambushed by Barack Obama.

So was Republican Congressman Aaron Schock, whose district encompassed the plant. Obama invited Schock along on Air Force One for the trip. In his speech, Obama singled out Schock for another Obama ambush, telling his audience to visit with Schock and encourage him "to do the right thing for the people of Illinois." In this case, Obama's ambush killed two birds with one stone -- a rare sign of efficiency on the part of our competency-challenged President.

The body count of Obama's ambushes will grow in the years ahead. How does this help to bring about the civility that Obama preaches should be part of our civic discourse? Of course, it doesn't. Hypocrisy is Obama's trademark. His style of ambushing and humiliating people is a sign of something deeper and darker in Obama's psyche, in his emotional makeup. He is vindictive and enjoys the spectacle of belittling people in front of others and in front of cameras.

The milk of human kindness does not flow in this man's veins, but rather something bitterer -- a type of personal poison that he enjoys spraying on others.

This does not dignify the office or the man. But he doesn't seem to care, and the courtier press that covers him with glory doesn't, either.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Page Printed from:

Thursday, July 29, 2010



Hang These Treasonous Scum

I’m amazed there has been so little outcry over the military files published by Wikileaks. To me, it has always seemed astonishing that such material should be published for our enemies to study, and use to plan their future strategies. Now an even more disastrous revelation. The files included the names of Afghan cooperatives and other material that makes them immediately identifiable. This is absolutely outrageous. A complete betrayal of those who helped the Allied forces in their struggle against stone age fascists.

There needs to be an immediate enquiry and if guilt is established the most severe penalties applied. If there are any deaths among the Allied forces or the Afghans who were named then there should somewhere be grounds for charges of treason and or murder or some derivation of those two offences.

On a broader scale, this only emphasizes the truth identified in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Treason”. The Democrat Party, (and unfortunately a large part of the Republican Party) are engaged in political activities which undermine the safety of our soldiers and they have been doing this for decades. Not much chance of justice with Obama as POTUS, (they did not even try to stop the publication of the files) but he’ll be gone soon and it’s time to start throwing the book at these treasonous cowardly swine who do not think for an instant of the safety of our soldiers if they believe an act will provide them with political advantage. Time to start oiling the gallows and greasing the trap door lever.

(and if it was up to me, Obama would be the first one to drop through)


A good metaphor for a divided America

Nice Christian Boy Goes Bad, Admits Obama Joined Radical Party, Wants to Fight Glenn Beck - Curious Yet?

The graphic in this post and the text below comes from an allegedly Christian Blog, The New Methodists;
A blog about being United Methodist, missional, emergent, and midwestern. Plus other stuff too!
The author Mike Oles does not like Glenn Beck, one iota, but does seem respect him as the worthy adversary he is.

He also can't spell his Beck's name consistently.

From the New Methodist March 12, 2010;

Why Glenn Beck Shouldn't Be Dismissed

Glenn Beck caused a bit of a shit storm controversy when he said recently that one should leave their church if the church mentions “social justice” on their web site.

Glenn Beck lives in Bizzaro World.

About anything he says is the exact opposite of what is reality. Equating progressives with Nazis, etc. I know this is Fox News 101 but he nor the network is not about honest scholarship or fair play.

At another level, Glen Beck is a genius and the perfect mouth piece for America’s flailing right-wing movement. He is completely wrong but that’s not the point. He (and Fox News), understands the power of authentic and costly community organizing. They fear it and they want to dismantle it. They want to snuff it out before it even becomes an issue.

They know that they have the power to confuse and disorient with all their well communicated bullshit. Their messaging can hold up any legislation that benefits workers, minorities, low-income people, seniors, etc. But when it comes to a street fight, the people who support Fox News have no chance if everyday people are educated, organized and ready to fight.

That’s why Glen Beck went after the churches.

He knows that churches are a powerful voice when they organize together around neighborhood and working class issues. They are at the heart of resisting the right-wing agenda if they organize. It doesn’t happen often enough and most churches are stuck defending the status quo. But, look at what groups like the Industrial Area Foundation and Gamaliel Foundation. They show what can happen when people the poor, the working class, and progressives unite.

But before Beck went after the churches, he went after SEIU and the progressive labor movement. Before that he went after ACORN. I turned on Glen Beck a few weeks ago and he was going after the ghost of Saul Alinsky and the community organizing efforts in Back of The Yards neighborhood in 1960s Chicago!

Glenn Beck is crazy but he has done his homework. He understands community organizing better than your blue dog Democrat or mainline liberal. He wants to wrestle it to the ground and strangle it.

Are we ready to fight back?

Who is this self proclaimed Christian who wants to get down and dirty with Glenn Beck?

According to his own website Mike Oles;

Spent three years as an organizer for SEIU. I mostly helped low income workers form unions;
I have been arrested twice. Fortunately both times were for civil disobedience. I was arrested in 1997 at the School of America’s protest and in 2006 at a Justice for Janitor’s rally in Indianapolis.
Now get what Mike Oles has to say about Barack Obama and the radical New Party - which, despite documentary evidence to the contrary, the Obama campaign claimed he never joined.
In college I worked as an intern organizer for the New Party on the southside of Chicago, which a young up and coming politician was a member. His name? Barack Obama.
Even Obama's Marxist "spiritual adviser Jim Wallis gets a mention;
I have personally met Barack Obama twice. When I was working for the Hospital Accountability Project, I was part of a press conference on a piece of legislation that he had co-sponsored. The second time was when my father-in-law (an economist) spoke at a Chicago gathering for the “Hope Fund.” In the room that day was Al Franken and Jim Wallis.
Mike Oles goes on to tell how his church turned him from a conservative to a "progressive".
I have gone from being very conservative politically to being very progressive. For some reason I started really paying attention to politics in 1994 and was wowed over by the Gingrich revolution. I read and loved his book “To Renew America” and also read Richard Nixon’s last book. Though I can’t stand neither now, I do wish we progressives adapted some of their hardball tactics and organizing skill. (I think Obama did this quite nicely).
I started to really change politically because of my friends and church. Our church did a lot of mission work and it soon became apparent that there was so much poverty not largely because people were stupid and lazy but that the system was broken and stacked against them.
That's how it works readers. A nice conservative midwestern boy gets into a radical church and before you know it he's working for SEIU, mixing with Jim Wallis and Barack Obama and wants to get it with Glenn Beck.

A good metaphor for a divided America?



The Democrats’ War on the West

By Michelle Malkin • July 23, 2010

The Democrats’ war on the west
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate

Copyright 2010

“Why do they hate us?”

It’s a burning question on the minds of border-dwelling taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, and Rocky Mountain oil and gas industry workers suffering under punitive Democrat policies. Eighteen months into the Obama administration, the war on the American West is in full swing.

The first battlefront: Immigration. On Wednesday, Senate Democrats rejected a GOP amendment banning the use of federal funds to participate in any litigation against the new Arizona immigration enforcement law. “Our federal government should be doing its job to secure our borders rather than trying to bully and intimidate the people of Arizona,” argued Republican amendment sponsor Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. “We should not be suing and really hassling the people of Arizona for doing what we should be doing here and that’s protecting the citizenry.”

All but five Senate Democrats (Indiana’s Evan Bayh took a pass and didn’t vote) sided with the anti-Arizona Obama administration – and against not only a majority of Arizonans, but a majority of Americans who support the state’s effort to restore order on the chaotic southern border and protect American workers facing double-digit unemployment. Several House Democrats have actively lobbied to boycott Arizona and crush its economy – most notably, southern Arizona’s own Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, who urged civic, religious, and political groups to take their convention dollars elsewhere. “Do not do business with this state,” Grijalva told open-borders zealots bent on punishing law-abiding citizens to “send a message.”

For its part, the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has targeted Maricopa County, Az., sheriff Joe Arpaio for more than a year over his strict enforcement policies against illegal alien criminals. The hell-bent Civil Rights Division is helmed by veteran illegal immigration advocate Thomas Perez, who has lobbied for driver’s licenses, in-state tuition discounts, and blanket amnesty for millions of border-jumpers, visa overstayers, and deportation fugitives.

Arizona’s neighbor to the north, Utah, is under fire by a different set of left-wing bureaucrats. When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar isn’t busy destroying jobs through his radical offshore drilling moratorium, he’s been blocking onshore development and wreaking havoc on the Beehive State’s energy industry. Last week, Salazar defended pulling 77 oil lease contracts granted in the final days of the Bush administration. Salazar’s inspector general concluded that there was no evidence of any rush to auction off the parcels– as baselessly claimed by environmental groups and Salazar himself. In fact, the leases were granted only after seven full years of rigorous study and debate.

That makes two Salazar job-destroying bans based off bogus eco-claims. (Remember: Loathsome cowboy Salazar was behind the shameless doctoring of a scientific report to bolster the Obama administration’s devastating offshore drilling ban.) Uintah County, Ut., officials have sued the Interior Department over the rescinded leases, which have cost the state untold millions of dollars and countless jobs in a tough economy. Not to mention the court expenses, legal morass, and regulatory uncertainty.

Other Western states are reeling as a result of the Democrats’ eco-radicalism – and the rest of America is paying a high price, too. Salazar was a leading opponent of oil shale development when he served in the U.S. Senate for Colorado. There are an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming alone – enough to potentially free us from Saudi oil dependence. Yet as Obama’s Interior Secretary, Salazar has wielded his power to halt plans to lease oil shale rights in the West. In addition, Obama’s Bureau of Land Management is dragging its feet on more than $100 million in unissued oil and gas leases in Wyoming. These resources remain untapped thanks to militant greenies who pay lip service to energy independence while blocking all practical means of achieving it.

At a partisan rally on Monday to crusade for endless unemployment insurance benefits extensions, President Obama lectured Republicans to “Stop holding workers hostage to politics.”

Speak for yourself, pal.



Hate Crime Over Rap Music?

Teen attacker warned whites "shouldn't be listening to rap music"

JULY 28--Declaring that white people "shouldn't be listening to rap music," a 14-year-old Florida boy allegedly assaulted a man Monday night in what police say was a racially-motivated attack. The teenager was arrested after he allegedly struck the 22-year-old victim, who is white, in the face. According to a Palm Bay Police Department report, a copy of which you'll find below, the victim was on a sidewalk listening to rap music when he was confronted by the boy and other teenagers. The suspect told the man to turn off his music, adding that he was "white and he shouldn't be listening to rap music." When the victim replied that he "could listen to whatever he wants," the suspect "repeatedly" punched him in the face. Though "other black juvenile males and females...attempted to get involved in the dispute," the victim fled "before any further battery could occur." The man sustained a swollen left eye during the assault, cops reported. The teen attacker gave a fake name when initially approached by cops, but was later identified by his mother. The boy was arrested and booked into Brevard County's juvenile detention facility for misdemeanor battery and giving cops a false name. However, if the incident is determined to be racially motivated, the battery charge could be elevated to a felony via a so-called hate-crime enhancement.



Adam Tragone
Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod?
Remember that awesome children’s picture book, Where’s Waldo? I loved searching for hours upon hours trying to find that lanky, goofy lookin’ dude with the red and white striped shirt, glasses and bobble hat. The objective was trying to pick Waldo out from other people in similar colored clothing doing all kinds of wacky and zany activities that little kids found amusing. Over the past week, I have been reminded of that game when it comes to trying to find out what happened to our favorite aggrieved, former USDA official, Shirley Sherrod.

Where in the world is Shirley Sherrod?

Recall that she was ousted by the Obama Administration for her now infamous speech at a NAACP event in Georgia where she admits, back in the day, that she “didn’t give the full force” of her resources as a state USDA official to a white farmer because, well, he was white. But then she saw the light and came to realize that it’s not only about white and black (her words), but it’s also about rich and poor. So she helped the guy out.

After Andrew Breitbart released the video of her remarks, the left’s media race-baiters went into all-out attack mode. From CNN to Newsweek, from CBS to CNBC, those outlets helped to saint Sherrod, claiming that Breitbart was a ‘nut job’ (Ed Shultz from MSNBC said that gem), a “bully” (CNN’s Anderson Cooper) and that Breitbart was engaged in, along with Fox News, a “smear campaign” (Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter). This all before we even heard Mrs. Sherrod’s side of the story.

Then, she stepped to the podium and confirmed to America what Breitbart’s video conveyed: Shirley Sherrod is a rambling race-hustler. Speaking with Anderson Cooper, she said that Andrew Breitbart would like to “get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” Uh. What? How can she even come out and imply that this is how Andrew Breitbart feels when she doesn’t even know him and all she does know about him is of a videotape that he released of her own words?

Then, Shirley took her anger out on—who else?—Fox News. Speaking with the Washington Post, Sherrod said she wouldn’t go on Fox because she felt that they considered her a “pawn” and that the network wanted to go “back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Now, you would like to think that she would have to explain these outrageously outrageous statements, right?

And, you’d be wrong! Since Sherrod’s incoherent and racial media blitz, she hasn’t popped up anywhere. Where’s the media’s canonized darling? “Reporters” have been quieter than a church mouse on the whole incident. Granted, our propagandist press probably realized that they fabricated Fox’s and Breitbart’s involvement in Sherrod’s firing (even Jon Stewart acknowledged this!), but let’s be honest here. Shirley Sherrod went on a racially tinged rant, this time in the safe confines of the leftist media, and was never heard from since. They’ve given her a pass. Sherrod is now harder to find than Waldo. I don’t blame her. She’s demonstrated that her world view is deeply shaped by race and gender. Stay hiding, Shirley. We don’t need any more of your disjointed racial musings.

Mr. Tragone is the news producer at HUMAN EVENTS. He received his bachelor's degree in Politics from Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. He was co-host of the school's only conservative radio talk show, and the chairman of Juniata's conservative student organization. Request to follow him on Twitter.


Geller on Hannity, Lou Dobbs et al on Blockbuster New Book, The Post-American Presidency

Have you gotten your copy yet?

My book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, launched yesterday, and I have been talking about it on TV and radio. In case you missed my appearance on Hannity last night (which is why I had to bolt the Ground Zero mosque community board meeting early), here's the clip.

I did Fox and Friends this morning, I hope to have a clip later.

Also huge thanks to Lou Dobbs for featuring my book on his website. He had me on his show yesterday........... you can listen to the show here.


And coming up 11:34am-11:44am ET Westwood One, National LIVE—The Dennis Miller Show And more on Jaime Allman in the morning, Jaz McKay, News & Views” Hosts: Larry Bates and Chuck Baker, Phil Valentine, The Lars Larson Show and more radio tomorrow.

Tomorrow night, I am out on the Island to speak at a Candidates Forum at temple Hillel in Woodmere. I will be signing books as well as speaking...........

And don't miss our book signing in Saturday, July 31, Book Revue in conjunction with Premiere. C-Span Book TV will be there:

PAP sign

Join me and Robert in Huntington, New York at Book Revue, 313 New York Avenue, Huntington. It's Saturday night, come!

UPDATE: I will be on Hannity's radio show today as well.



What Is the Endgame for Conservatives?

By Michael Filozof

Conservatives who read the polls are already anticipating Republican gains in this November's Congressional elections, hoping for an anti-Obama tidal wave. They should temper their enthusiasm. Statistically, the opposition party almost always gains seats in midterm elections. But let us for the sake of the argument suppose that a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections is in the offing and that Republicans exceed their wildest expectations, and gain control of both houses.

What will change?

Will ObamaCare be repealed? Almost assuredly not. There is virtually zero chance that the Republicans will control both houses by the two-thirds majority necessary to override Obama's certain veto of any repeal effort.

Will illegal aliens be deported and the Mexican border sealed? No. Sen. McCain (whose signature legislation sought to make First Amendment freedoms illegal during election campaigns) will join forces with Obama and Sen. Graham to grant amnesty to the 12-15 million illegal aliens already here, during a time of 10% unemployment.

Will the budget be balanced? Not a chance. If the current $-1.5 trillion deficit were shrunk to only the half-trillion of the Bush years it would be a monumental accomplishment.

Will the pointless war in Afghanistan, in which the U.S. endeavors to prop up a government just as corrupt as Ngo Dinh Diem's in Vietnam, be ended? No. It will continue to drag on and cost American lives.

It is time for conservatives to ask some hard questions. What, exactly, is it that they hope to "conserve"? And how will they do it?

We know what the endgame is for the political Left. It is national socialism with as many citizens dependent on the government as possible, and international socialism with foreign policy and economic policy controlled by UN and EU-style bureaucrats. This would put the Right out of business for good. What, then, is the endgame for the political Right? How does it plan -- (does it even have a plan?) -- to put the Left out of business for good?

For decades, right-wing voices were nearly unheard in our national discourse. Today, the right-wing critique is ubiquitous. FOX News is almost 14 years old, and it has healthier ratings than "mainstream" broadcast news. AM radio stations broadcast wall-to-wall right-wing talk to tens of millions, while the New York Times and CNN teeter on the verge of insolvency. Every verbal gaffe or moronic statement made by Obama and his fellow Leftists is instantly relayed to millions on the Internet. No one seeking an alternative to Leftist thinking can credibly say that they cannot find one.

But what has the conservative critique of the Left achieved? Nothing. In 1951, the late William F. Buckley single-handedly founded the modern conservative movement when he wrote God and Man at Yale -- a critique of the atheist and socialist sympathies of the Yale faculty that he had experienced firsthand as an undergraduate. Today, Yale hosts an annual "Sex Week" in which porn stars, strippers, and fetishists give presentations.

In his 1960 book Conscience of a Conservative, Sen. Barry Goldwater decried the increase in Federal spending from $60 billion to $80 billion. Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson by a nearly 2-1 margin in the 1964 election. Today, Federal spending is approaching $4 trillion and the deficit is $-1.5 trillion per annum.

It has been thirty-seven years since Roe v. Wade was decided, and thirty years since Ronald Reagan was elected promising to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court. But it was Reagan's affirmative-action "first female" appointee Sandra O'Connor who voted to uphold Roe in 1992.

Indeed, the sainted Gipper, icon of the conservative movement, was a former Democratic union man who signed an abortion into law as governor of California six years prior to Roe, never had a balanced budget in his eight years as president, and signed an illegal alien amnesty in 1986. Thirty years after Reagan's administration contemplated eliminating the Department of Education, it is more bloated than ever, using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the teaching of political correctness and hatred of America.

What would a truly conservative America look like? It is unrealistic to argue, as some conservatives and Tea Partiers do, for a return to Jeffersonian libertarianism, no matter how desirable that may be. If conservatives were able to scale the power of today's Federal leviathan back to "merely" post-New Deal levels, it would be an enormous achievement.

Let us suppose for a moment that the conservative goal was merely the preservation of the cultural values and international status of the America of the Eisenhower-Kennedy era (arguably the apogee of American power and influence). What then would be on the conservative agenda?

-A civil-rights movement based on individual equality, not group entitlements and reverse discrimination against whites and Asians;

-Mandatory military training and conscription;

-A muscular foreign policy in which America stood up to its enemies as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis, rather than the Obama foreign policy posture of a beaten dog piddling in submission;

-Balanced or low-deficit budgets, with social spending limited to pre-Great Society "safety-net" minimums;

-A non-P.C. acknowledgement that enemies (then communists, now Muslim fanatics) sought to use America's freedoms as a tool to destroy it from within;

-The unapologetic deportation of illegals, e.g., Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" in 1954;

-The maintenance of American industrial and technological superiority;

-Social issues such as abortion and homosexuality left up to state legislatures as the Founders intended, rather than declared "constitutional rights" by activist judges;

-The public acknowledgement of a nonsectarian "civic religion" based on the Judeo-Christian tradition;

-Unions investigated by the Federal government for corruption and racketeering, and a non-unionized public sector.

Conservatives must be under no illusions that the Left would regard such an agenda as "fascist" and react violently if such an agenda ever came close to being implemented.

It must be remembered that the Left of the Sixties routinely characterized Lyndon Johnson -- father of Great Society socialism and affirmative action -- as "fascist," and that violence has always been a central part of the Left's strategy. Armed black students seized Cornell University in 1969. JFK was shot by a communist. RFK was shot by a Palestinian. Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers is now a tenured professor and confidante of the President of the United States. From the riots in Watts to the anti-globalization protesters in Seattle to the anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war marchers, the Left has always "taken it to the streets." The Right could not succeed in implementing the conservative agenda outlined above without a willingness to utilize the power of the state to suppress the violence that the Left would surely perpetrate if a Rightist victory were imminent.

The Republicans may gain seats in November, but it is hardly certain that they will implement a conservative agenda. Will the American Right choose to accept subjugation under the rule of the Left, and perform the same function that the British Conservative Party has performed for decades -- namely, provide rhetorical opposition but never really change anything? Or will the Right actually seek to reverse the hegemony of the Left, and restore American culture to its post-WWII greatness, mindful that the costs of doing so would be high?