Dear New York Times, put down the race card and back away slowly

April 12, 2015

Liberal tolerance racist

I swear by all that’s holy, I am so sick of the Left branding any criticism of their policies or philosophy as “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” or whatever that I nearly break out in a rash when it happens these days. It demonstrates their barrel-scarping intellectual bankruptcy that they have to resort to smears, since their ideas have long since been shown to be miserable failures. And it’s not just the loony Left engaging in these nauseating campaigns, but supposedly respectable people and institutions.

The latest is The New York Times, which has an error-filled editorial accusing the Republicans of, naturally, racism in their opposition to President Obama, the latest case being criticism (1) of the nuclear “deal” with Iran.  Here’s an excerpt:

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.

This is such bull-waste that I think I should have put on my hip waders before reading it.

Joel Pollack of Breitbart has a point by point rebuttal of this farce. Here’s what he has to say about the above quote on questioning Obama’s citizenship:

Another attempt to rewrite history. The first questions about Obama’s citizenship, and the first attacks on his faith, came directly from the Hillary Clinton camp in 2008. (2) No doubt the Times feels uncomfortable acknowledging that fact on the day that Hillary Clinton announces her new run for the presidency. The fact that a fringe of the GOP later embraced the Birther movement did not change the fact that it started with Clinton, nor make it the basis for Republican opposition.

Then, regarding the Republican open letter to the Iranian leadership, authored by Senator Cotton (R-AR)

The charge of racism is ridiculous, made more so by the example the Times chose. The Times also distorts the content of the letter. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and his colleagues did not say Obama “had no authority to conclude negotiations.” It said he shared that authority with Congress, such that any agreement he did conclude would only be an “executive agreement” and would not be binding on future presidents. The fact that the Times has to lie about the letter is telling.

…The difference between Reykjavik and Lausanne is that Reagan was willing to walk away from talks at Reykjavik! And the fact is that Democrats in Congress undertook many actions that undermined President Reagan and other Republican presidents. There were Ted Kennedy’s overtures to the Soviets, John Kerry’s outreach to the Sandinistas, Nancy Pelosi’s coddling of Assad, and other examples. Does the Times really want to go there? No problem!

Read the rest to see the Times’ editorial thoroughly dismantled.

So, in the effort to support the president’s policies and convince people that they should support Democrats, all America’s once-premier newspaper has left are lies and slanders.

Pathetic.

Footnote:
(1) Odd that there’s no mention of the strong resistance from Democrats, such as Senators Menendez and Schumer. Are they racists, too, O editorial board?
(2) So, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee is racist, n’est-ce pas?


If you go off the reservation, the Democrats will try to destroy you

November 20, 2011

We’ve seen it happen time and again: a public figure from an ethic minority considered “ours” by the liberal left gains prominence as a conservative, they do everything in their power to ruin him or her politically for fear that others might follow. Long ago, it was Clarence Thomas and the “high tech lynching.” More recently, minority conservatives such as Miguel Estrada, Condoleezza Rice, and Marco Rubio were all subjected to vicious, mendacious, even racist attacks questioning their truthfulness, morality, and “authenticity” (1).

Now it’s Susana Martinez’s turn. The Governor of New Mexico has committed a great sin: she is from a minority (2) , Mexican-American, a conservative and a Republican, and she has the temerity to govern as one.

She is thus a threat and must be destroyed, in this case by lying about her family:

Here we have a popular and successful Latina politician with a bold, conservative agenda in an important swing state. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, there has to be a catch.

“Ms. Martinez, who grew up along the border, is also Mexican-American, with news reports since her election revealing that her paternal grandfather came to the United States as an illegal immigrant,” wrote Marc Lacey in a New York Times profile three months ago.

“…The New Mexican’s Sandra Baltazar Martínez reported recently, at least two of the governor’s grandparents also were [undocumented immigrants],” wrote the Santa Fe New Mexican in a recent editorial.

Lest you be under any illusions about the nature and motives of these news items, bear in mind that Gov. Martinez wants to roll back certain of her predecessor’s policies regarding illegal immigration in New Mexico, most notably, a policy that allows illegal immigrants to secure drivers licenses. “The governor’s opponents have pointed to her immigrant grandparents as an example of why New Mexico should welcome illegal immigrants and continue to allow them to get a driver’s license,” reports the Associated Press.

Obviously, the stage is set for the media and her political rivals to paint Gov. Martinez as a hypocrite and a traitor to her people.

There’s only one problem: The story about Martinez’s grandparents is junk. The Governor’s grandparents were not U.S. citizens, but they were most certainly not illegal immigrants.

Read the rest to see why this charge is bogus.

It’s an old rhetorical trick, one beloved of demagogues everywhere: plant a leading question seemingly loaded with damning implications with the audience, then trust that their cynicism and distrust of politicians will prevent them from thinking critically and asking rational questions such as, “What was the state of the law at the time her grandparents arrived in the US?”

It’s a cheap, sleazy tactic, but it’s one that’s used so regularly because it often works.

Thankfully, in the cases of Marco Rubio and candidate for US Senate Ted Cruz (R-TX), it didn’t work. But now the “smear guns” have been turned on Governor Martinez, who’s increasingly seen as another threat to the Democrats’ death-grip on minority groups.

We mustn’t let them succeed.

Footnotes:
(1) Because, after all, what “authentic” minority could ever consider being a Republican. Must be a traitor.
(2) Twice-over. A Mexican-American and a woman. The horror…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Barack Obama: so hypocritical, it’s almost grotesque

October 10, 2010

Recently, President Obama joined in a campaign by the Democrats and other left-wingers  to vilify the US Chamber of Commerce by accusing it of using foreign money to fund its political operations:

Referring to a study by the liberal group ThinkProgress that – correctly – notes that the US Chamber of Commerce has some funding sources abroad, including foreign corporations and American Chambers of Commerce around the world (or “AmChams”), the President said, “just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations.”

The president then took this step, saying, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from.”

Chamber officials say that money coming from foreign donors cannot be used for political activity under the 1907 Tillman Act, and that the charge is false.

Forget whether the charge is correct or not. Ignore the fact that this is a desperate, xenophobic smear job by a party facing a massacre at the polls.

It’s the hypocrisy that’s jaw-dropping, given that Obama’s own presidential campaign winked at foreign money. Michael Barone explains:

Glenn Reynolds nails this one: the Obama Democrats’ campaign riff against foreign donations to Democrats is bogus—and according to the New York Times, no less. This looks like a matter of projection, since it’s well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals. Here’s the Washington Post on this back in October 2008: Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

Go read the rest of the article and follow the other links back to reports from 2008 on the Obama campaign and odd donations. Here’s another. Obama and the Democrats engaged in rampant cheating regarding foreign donations, and now they have the gall to falsely accuse the Chamber of Commerce of doing what they themselves did?

Just another day of Life Under Alinsky Rules:

“Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

And, we should add, “Lie about it and hope the rubes fall for it.”

RELATED: Of course, in 2008 the Obama campaign was just following the precedent established by Clinton and Gore.

UPDATE: And here’s the cherry on top: The President’s chief political adviser, David Axelrod, says he doesn’t have to produce proof – it’s up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. Wow. Just shameless.

UPDATE II, 10/11/10: Ed Morrissey calls Obama’s baseless accusations “McCarthyism” and a form of tyranny. He’s right.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In search of: People of Color

September 13, 2010

If you listen to the mainstream media narrative, the Tea Party movement is a Whites-only affair, the second coming of the angry white man, and a thinly disguised Klan revival. To find out the truth behind this, Bob Parks went on the scene at the Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. Here’s what he found:

Weird. I thought sure he’d find some.

via Big Journalism

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Wait, the conservative Christian doesn’t want to burn Qurans?

September 9, 2010

Back in the 2008 campaign, one of the most persistent smears of Sarah Palin was that she tried to have some books banned from the local library while she was Mayor of Wasilla. That’s kind of hard to square with the woman who would write this, however:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

So, let me get this straight: that raging, fire-breathing Evangelical Christian, that chillbilly social conservative, is arguing against burning the sacred texts of a religion, Islam, many of whose adherents are waging war against us in its name? And she’s doing so in eloquent terms that appeal to reason and express the best ideals of her country and her faith?

Yeah, she’s a danger to the nation. You betcha.

Oh, and she didn’t try to ban books, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pravda would be proud

July 20, 2010

People on the Right have for years complained about a media establishment biased toward the Left, only to be roundly mocked as paranoid, even when some evidence shows they were right. (For example) During the 2008 campaign, it became increasingly apparent that the major media had given up objectivity and was openly pulling for the victory of then-Senator Obama. While concentrating all their powers on Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, they almost totally ignored Obama’s political background, relationships, and lack of experience.

But they weren’t just passively avoiding anything that might be critical of Obama or detrimental to his presidential bid. No, at the very least some members of a now-defunct private mailing list  for liberal and left-wing journalists and other opinion makers called “Journolist” were looking for ways to actively intimidate into silence not just conservative critics, but even more moderate liberal members of the MSM. How would they do this?

According to The Daily Caller, by smearing their opponents as racists:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

The members of Journolist weren’t about to see their champion hurled to the ground. But, rather than investigate and try to refute the allegations regarding Reverend Wright and Obama, they instead decided to attack their colleagues:

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

“I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

“And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In other words, a naked call to play the Race Card in American politics in order to stifle debate and criticism. Racism is the most vile charge one can make in our society; to accuse someone of it is to smear them for a long time, if not forever. And the discussants on Journolist were about to unleash it on their professional colleagues.

It’s fair to note that the people mentioned in the DC article formulating this strategy are almost all opinion journalists, such as Katha Pollitt at the progressive The Nation. One would expect them to try to shape the debate and defend their ideological positions, just as their counterparts at The Weekly Standard or National Review would do.

But not by character assassination and implying they were racists. And not by attacking members of the “objective press” for simply asking tough, legitimate questions.

That crosses the line not just into advocacy journalism, but propaganda of the worst sort, the kind I’d expect to see from the “journalistic organs” of a totalitarian state. Jack Reed and Walter Duranty would be proud.

The Daily Caller promises more in the days to come, and it will be interesting to see how far this rot has spread from politically-oriented opinion journalists to mainstream reporters.

I suspect it’s gone quite far.

(via Big Journalism)

LINKS: More from John Nolte, who says the playing of the race card isn’t the most shocking thing; Andrew Breitbart, who thinks the reporters at Pravda were better people; Kurt Schlichter, who talks about the MSM memory hole; Ed Morrissey, who considers the implications of this for the Left’s attempts to paint the Tea Party as racists; and William Jacobson, who says “Yes, Liberal journalists did manipulate the 2008 election.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leftist nitwit: US Border Patrol same as the KKK

June 24, 2010

I’ve got a few words in mind for Elena Herrada, but I’d have to ban myself if I used them, so I’ll let this “activist” speak for herself.

(via Allahpundit)


Black conservatives on the “racist Tea Party” smears

May 7, 2010

A bookend for this post: In the video below, Black conservatives take on the progressive smear that the populist Tea Party movement is a cover for racists:


There’s also the violence card

April 26, 2010

In an earlier post, I wondered if the race card was the only card left in the (Social) Democrats’ deck. The answer is “no,” as Jack Kelly reminds us in a column at Real Clear Politics. They also can and do play the “angry, violent mob” card, accusing conservative protesters of near-sedition and having a potential for terrorism:

It is a despicable smear to attempt to link critics of the tax, spending and regulatory policies of the Obama administration to [Oklahoma City bomber Timothy] McVeigh. Imagine how Mr. Clinton and Mr. Klein would howl if it were asserted that those who protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for the shooting at Fort Hood last November which left 13 dead.

No prominent conservative has asserted that, of course. But it’s a meme among the eminences of the left that the tea party movement is comprised of “angry” knuckle-dragging bigots one Rush Limbaugh broadcast away from insurrection and murder. All this despite the fact the only violence reported at tea party rallies has come when left wingers assaulted protesters.

Kelly then recounts two incidents of left-wing violence from among the several that have happened over the past year. But, one wonders, why do the progressive-statists feel the need to smear the opposition as barely contained rioters? Kelly offers one potential answer:

What really terrifies Democrats is not just the number or size of tea party rallies, but that they are occurring at all. For more than a century, the protest demonstration has been almost exclusively a left-wing thing. Conservatives just don’t demonstrate. The tea party indicates a level of street activism on the right unprecedented in our history.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Dec. 16 indicated the tea party was more popular than either Democrats or Republicans. Respondents approved of the tea party, 41 percent to 23 percent. More disapproved of both the Republican Party (28-43) and the Democratic Party (35-45) than approved of them.

So the tea party must be smeared, lest it gain even more adherents.

I think he’s on to something, but it’s not just fear of the other side developing its own mass movement. As I wrote yesterday, the progressives realize they cannot win the argument based on policy ideas or empirical results, most of the nation rejects what they offer and hates what they’ve done. So all they have left is to try to distract moderates and independents by painting Tea Partiers and other activists concerned by what’s going on in Washington as racists on the edge of violence. For all the Left accused then-President Bush of distracting people from the real issues by playing to their fears, they themselves are doing it in spades.

Yet more and more people are on to the game they’re playing, and each time they lay down the “race” or “violence” cards, their power to intimidate shrinks just a bit more.


But of course. Massachusetts is racist.

January 20, 2010

The only explanation for yesterday’s victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate race is RAAAAACISM!!! It must be. Keith Olbermann* and Howard Fineman issued this piece of brilliant analysis on Olbermann’s MSNBC show last night:

OLBERMANN: The Republicans and the Tea Partiers will tell you what happens tonight with Scott Brown tonight, whether he wins or comes close, is a repudiation of Obama policies, and surely one of Obama’s policies from the viewpoint of his opponents is that it’s okay to have this sea change in American history, to have an African-American President. Is this vote to any degree just a euphemism the way state’s rights was in the 60s?

FINEMAN: Wow, that is a good question.

No, Howard, that’s a lousy question. Because it’s not even a real question. It’s an accusation and a smear dressed up as a question in order to fool the listener into thinking there’s some serious intelligence behind it, much like a prosecutor asks a leading question in order to get the answer he wants. It’s an insult to the people of Massachusetts, who voted for our African-American president by a large majority just 14 months ago.  Do you and Keith really want us to think they suddenly woke up yesterday morning and slapped themselves on the head when they realized “Oh, my God! We put a Darky in the White House?” It’s also an insult to conservatives across the nation because it says we support federalism and limited government because we really, secretly, in our deepest, most bigoted heart of hearts want to wear hoods and sheets and burn crosses to keep the Blacks “in their place.”

Oh, and for the record, the sheet-and-hood guys were Democrats.

No wonder Olbermann’s ratings are in the tank and no one reads Newsweak Newsweek anymore.

By the way, driving a truck is also a sign of racism. It’s obvious. I’m surprised everyone doesn’t know this, including my Black neighbor who drives a Ford F-150!

It would take race-detectives Keith and Howie only a moment to deduce he’s a self-hating Uncle Tom.

And some people take these clowns seriously?

*(I first ran across Keith when he was a lousy sportscaster here in Southern California. It’s nice to see he hasn’t changed.)

RELATED: More racist links from The Anchoress.


Is Harry Reid a louse or just stupid?

December 8, 2009

I suppose both could be true, given the pettiness and ignorance needed to describe opponents of nationalized medicine as the equivalent of those who opposed civil rights or defended slavery:

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

And if you need to see it to believe it, here’s the video:

Harry needs more than a few lessons in History. For  starters, when Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he was a Democrat. The act itself was proposed by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

But, let’s not stop there. The Democrats have a long and dirty history with civil rights that’s largely been swept under the carpet. Prior to the Civil War, it was the Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and pushed for its expansion. They were so closely tied to slavery that they had effectively married the issue and become almost a Southern regional party. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups that attacked Black and other Republican citizens and office-holders was founded by Democrats and, after Reconstruction ended, functioned as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to enforce an apartheid regime in the Jim Crow South.

And that’s not all. Democrats fought against all federal anti-lynching legislation for 90 years until 1964. It was a Democratic “progressive” President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced segregation to the Federal government.  FDR’s New Deal labor policies sent Black unemployment skyrocketing. And it was a Democratic senator, the honorable Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh, and he had been a recruiter for the Klan, too.

This is nowhere near the whole story of the Democrats, slavery, and race relations. Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race is a well-written, heavily documented summary. I recommend it for a good eye-opening.

Really, though, Reid’s odious dismissals of legitimate political opposition are only the latest in a long line of attempts by Democrat leaders in recent years to defeat their opponents through smears and waving the bloody shirt, not through the strength of their policy arguments. The late Senator Kennedy infamously slandered Judge Robert Bork from the floor of the Senate upon learning of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas was accused of being a base sexual harasser during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Senators Kennedy and Durbin compared American troops to Nazis and followers of Saddam Hussein during the abu Ghraib scandal, way out of proportion to what really happened. And this last summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared American citizens exercising their legitimate rights to protest ObamaCare to Nazis.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans (and some fence-sitting Democrats?) who are representing their constituents -exercising legitimate opposition to nationalized health care and making use of all the parliamentary tools available to senators- are comparable to defenders of slavery and the oppression of women.

It just goes to show how bankrupt their arguments are. They can’t win on the merits of cost, economics, or politics – the facts are all against them, as are a majority of the American people. So, instead they hurl rhetorical bombs and hope that cows moderates and conservatives into submission.

How pathetic.

Regarding the question in the subject line, I still haven’t decided if it’s either-or or both, but it looks like Nevadans have realized they’re being represented by a schmuck: polls have the Majority Leader well behind both likely Republican opponents.

Good. Maybe they’ll finally rid the Senate of that smell.

LINKS: More from Legal Insurrection, Hot Air, and Big Government.

UPDATEReid doubles-down on his stupidity. (via Matt Lewis)


Coda: Clearing up the Palin wardrobe saga

November 9, 2009

Via Conservatives for Palin, who got tired of waiting for the media to correct their false reports about Sarah Palin and the infamous “wardrobe scandal,” a video that presents the truth:

I know, I know. It’s hard watching Chris Matthews without throwing up a bit in your mouth. But this was one of the biggest, most damaging slanders aimed at Sarah Palin, and the record needs to be set straight.


First it was “raaaaacism!!!” Now it’s…

September 27, 2009

…The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm), back and badder than ever, and out to get The One. Bill Clinton said so.

And Fausta has the video proof.


Monday links fiesta

August 10, 2009

It’s a busy, busy day, today. (Why is it the day before a vacation is so hectic? At wits end) So, in lieu of a real post, here are some links to keep you amused, enlightened, and on the White House enemies list:

Global Warming Climate Change Junk Science Watch:

One of the major problems with the computer models cited by global-warming alarmists is their utter failure to accurately model the past or predict the future. Ron House at Watt’s Up With That? looks at one, the failure to find the predicted atmospheric red spot. For more background on this, check out David Evans’ 2008 article in The Australian: No smoking hot spot.

Guess what? The sun and variations in the Earth’s orbit are the cause of ice ages, not CO2.

More on CO2 and climate change: it’s a trailing indicator, not a cause.

On the Svensmark theory that cosmic rays influence the Earth’s cloud cover and thus Earth’s climate:

Sarah Palin Watch:

The former Alaska governor last week denounced the proposed health-care reform plan as evil. That caused a predictable firestorm, even on the Right. Rick Moran, normally a level-headed writer, denounced her for outrageous demagoguery. Smitty at The Other McCain, on the other hand, drew his sword to defend Mrs. Palin and denounce Mr. Moran as a blowhard. In this case, I’m with Smitty. Palin may have engaged in a bit of hyperbole when she used the words “death panel,” but, as Despina Karras shows, she wasn’t all that far off the mark. Legal Insurrection points out the underlying accuracy of her words, too.

Fishy Activities Watch:

Opposition to ObamaCare continues to grow, despite the Democrats best efforts to clap their hands to their ears and scream “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”:

First, believe it or not, President Obama wants you to just shut up.

Meanwhile, enjoy this video of peaceful, unionized supporters of health-care reform kicking the crap out of a conservative Black man who dared to voice dissent. (More from Fausta and Hot Air.) And here’s a video of the victim attending a protest in a wheelchair a couple of days later outside of the local headquarters of the ever-peaceful SEIU, whose goons administered the beating. Why does this ring a bell?

More on SEIU’s commitment to democracy.

Meanwhile, did you know that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the woman second in line for the Presidency, and the House Majority Leader both think that vocal opposition to ObamaCare is un-American? Way to build that majority, Nancy and Steny! I’m sure slagging large swathes of the American people will bring loads of new voters to the Democratic banner. Minority Leader Boehner, on the other hand, takes predictable (and justifiable) exception to their editorial.

And, hey, if you object to being called un-American, how about being compared to Oklahoma City-bomber Timothy McVeigh? NiiiiceWaiting

Finally:

I always like to end linkapalooza posts with some humor. Tito found this hilarious blast from the past, Don Rickles roasting then-Governor Ronald Reagan. Enjoy.

Rolling on the floor


People are not automatons…

August 7, 2009

First time in years I’ve agreed with Peggy Noonan:

What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

And they’re not Nazis or insurance-company stooges, either. Read the whole thing. It’s a good one.


Those who oppose Obama’s health care reforms are Nazis!

August 5, 2009

So says Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-They’reAllVillains):

Impossible. Everyone knows Nazi villains are too well-dressed to genuinely oppose ObamaCare. Senator Boxer said so.

Somewhere, a circus is missing a couple of its clowns.  Clown


Throw it up and see what sticks

September 8, 2008

I tell ya, by the time this election is over (and perhaps for the next four years) Sarah Palin is going to need her own janitorial crew as part of her entourage to deal with all the dirt being flung at her. In the interests of truth, here are two more sites to keep handy when someone says “Did you know…”

First, contrary to popular Lefty opinion that sees all religious people as anti-scientific mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, Governor Palin has not advocated teaching “creation science” (or creationism or “intelligent design”) in the school curriculum. Now, can we please lay that canard to rest? Waiting

Second, FactCheck.org has a post up debunking not only the creationism lie, but several others as well. Be sure to bookmark that one.

It’s a measure of how frightened the Obama campaign and its “Progressive” allies are of Palin that they resort to these easily disprovable smears. To quote their leader,

The American people aren’t stupid.

No, but they treat us as if we were. Angry

UPDATE: And here’s another one. Honestly, at the rate the media reports scandal after Palin scandal, you’d think she was from Chicago, not Wasilla.

LINKS: Sister Toldjah.

EDIT: Updated categories and tags. 9/26/2010.

Another smear cleaned up

September 7, 2008

Like vampires suddenly shown a cross, so-called Progressives have hissed and clawed in impotent rage since John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. They’ve floated all sorts of rumors about her and resorted to slander to try to dent her genuine popularity. They’ve even gone after her family. Now those who fear her for her religion have used her daughter’s pregnancy to slam her for favoring abstinence-only sex education in the schools. The implication is that she’s some sort of Christian Right hypocrite who would rather girls get pregnant or contract a venereal disease than let them be taught about contraception.

Except that isn’t true.

It’s amazing what a meltdown one woman can cause. Maybe the liberal, tolerant Left should stop and take a breath. Time out

EDIT: Updated categories and tags, 9/26/2010