From the Beeb:
The head of its education committee in Gaza, Abdul Rahman el-Jamal, told the BBC that the Holocaust was a "big lie".
He said that to teach it would be to "grant a big favour" to Israel, which has been fighting Hamas for years.
The UN, which runs most Gazan schools, recently asked local groups whether the Holocaust should be taught.
It uses local textbooks and, in Gaza, that means using material from neighbouring Egypt, the BBC's Tim Franks reports.
But over the past seven years the UN has added its own coursework about human rights.
Mr Jamal told the BBC that the UN should, instead, teach about the Naqba, the term Palestinians use to describe the establishment of the state of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees.
I'm sure this makes DE's own resident hypocrite commenter Perry quite happy. He's been a Hamas apologist for who knows how long. Jamal's views on the supposed Naqba fit neatly into Perry's own (see the comment section). Not surprising considering Perry says that Israel "has been resistant for decades to a diplomatic solution" for middle east peace.
Yes. Israel. Uh huh.
... our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) recently attempted to make fun of fellow mu.nu-er and Watcher's Council member Rhymes With Right over his "recent comments" section. Since I'm all too well familiar with the past spam issues at the mu.nu blogs, let me elaborate for moonbat xstryker:
1) You doubted RWR's word that he shut down comments as he claimed, but he's telling the truth. Even though a mu.nu-er may manually turn off comments via their Movable Type interface, some comment spam can still get through. Don't ask me how. But it would only appear on a "recent comments" section as well as the MT administrator interface we use, not the actual post in question. Like RWR, I removed my "recent comments" section as a result of spam issues.
2) RWR hasn't been as diligent as myself in dealing with the spam issue, so I'm in the know a bit more. I've taken the time to clean most of mine and have been in communication with mu.nu's (yes, foreign) proprietor. He's installed a new spam zapper that has been most effective since its installation this past month or so. In this last month I've had to deal with maybe 20 spam comments total. This is quite an improvement over past mu.nu spam zappers which would leave us to deal with well over 20 spam comments a day.
So, once again, the LGOMB fails. Surprise.
My God, I never saw this coming. And it seems to explain why Costa Rican President Oscar Arias wasn't an honest broker in the negotiations between ousted Honduras President Mel Zelaya and new President Roberto Micheletti:
President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica has joined the trend in Latin America of calling for a new constitution that would expand executive powers and get rid of “unnecessary checks” on the president’s authority. Although Arias has less than 9 months left in office and can’t run for reelection, his brother and current minister of the presidency — a prime minister of sorts — has openly said he’s interested in running for president in 2014. A new constitution with expanded executive powers would fit him just fine.
Arias’ call has been received with broad skepticism. La Nación, Costa Rica’s leading newspaper, said that trying to make the government more efficient through a constitutional convention was like “killing a mouse with cannon fire.” The newspaper also said that the idea of dismantling the checks and balances on executive power sounds like an effort to create an “imperial presidency.”
However, the most disturbing aspect of Arias’ call was his harsh criticism of the media. Borrowing from the script of Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Arias described news outlets as “corporations interested in making a profit” that don’t necessarily pursue the “public good.” He asked the media to “tone down” its criticism of government officials, and said that journalists “should understand their role within a higher framework.” He complained that news outlets claim to represent the public interest, without any control or accountability. (Source.)
Well, we've seen what happened in Honduras when Zelaya attempted to do this very thing quite forcefully -- he was booted from office (and the country). And that country is sticking to its principles despite our own uncomprehending president. Arias would do VERY well to reconsider his position. Costa Rica has a much longer tradition of democracy and stability than virtually any other Latin American nation. There isn't nearly the disparity between the rich and poor there, the factor which was largely responsible for the elections of those like Chávez and Evo Morales in Bolivia.
The Ticos (Costa Ricans) won't even begin to stand for such authoritarian-tinged nonsense from a president of theirs, whoever it may be. Arias, in his old age, must be becoming full of himself like way too many other politicians. He'd best sock that crap away somewhere before he ends up like his pal Mel Zelaya.
(Thanks for Rhymes With Right for the story tip.)
It's time to take a gander of the sort of "change" we've really gotten since January 20.
** We elected a guy who sat in a church for some 20 years listening to the rantings and ravings of an Al Sharpton-esque racial grievance huckster whose church hands out pamphlets with the "news" that Israel has developed an "anti-Arab/anti-black" bomb that will kill -- you guessed it -- only Arabs and blacks. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright (you knew that, right?) is also a racial phrenologist, believes in a "black value system," is a Hamas supporter, and believes Jews "won't let Obama talk to him" now that Barack is president.
Of course, Obama claims he was aware of NONE of this during his, yes, twenty years in the church's pews.
** Obama willingly collaborated with unrepentant former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers in the past.
** Obama is an extremist on abortion, period. He favored infanticide -- if a baby survived an abortion, Obama favored its subsequent killing. He once flat-out said that if a woman makes a mistake, he doesn't want her "punished with a baby." He has a 100% rating from the abortion-rights group NARAL.
** In foreign policy, Obama has poo-pooed the blatant election fraud in Iran, pledging that we'll still work the current regime; on the other hand, when a would-be Hugo Chávez-esque dictator in Honduras is ousted by its country's army (after being rebuked by the country's legislature and its supreme court and still refused to vacate office), we castigate the latter and complain about the old-style military coups of the 1960s and 70s ... putting us in the same camp as Chávez and Fidel Castro.
** Speaking of Hugo Chávez, Obama has a continued predilection for abusing basic facts, and/or just not getting them even close to correct. He blamed George W. Bush for Chávez's ascendancy to power; he thought ten thousand people were killed in a Kansas tornado strike; didn't know basic facts about WW II while boasting; displayed ignorance about presidential term limits; didn't know on which committee(s) he served in the Senate; thought inflating your tires properly would negate the need to drill for more oil; and, denied having any contact with disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich when he actually did.
** Obama's appointments. Eric Holder as Attorney General has waffled on the issue of terrorism and terrorist rights more than Eggo. Holder, who had said that terrorists "are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention," had indicated that he would not seek an investigation into Bush-era potential CIA-prisoner abuses, but now says that he will. This, even though Obama's very own national intelligence director Dennis Blair "left open the possibility that techniques beyond the 19 currently approved for military interrogators could be authorized!"
If you're wondering why Holder flip-flopped, look no further than Obama's sinking poll numbers and the massive unpopularity of the healthcare debate. After all, why else would the administration risk national security in this manner, all the while failing to prosecute rather obvious voter intimidation cases and ceasing the investigation of well-connected Obama buddy?
Then there's Dept. of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. She drops the term "enemy combatant" for "suspected terrorist," replaces "terrorism" with -- wait for it -- "man-caused disasters," and doesn't think crossing the U.S. border illegally is a crime "per se." But best of all, she thought the 9/11 hijackers crossed the border illegally from Canada! And of course, who can forget the infamous DHS memo?
Obama's "science czar" John Holdren who back in 1977 wrote that
Obama's surgeon general pick Regina Benjamin serves on the board of Physicians for Human Rights. This group has the typical far-left view that democratic countries must be investigated while those of communist/dictatorial/authoritarian nations ... eh, not so much.
Obama's "green czar" Van Jones has radical roots to rival those of Jeremiah Wright!
The FCC created a new position -- "Chief Diversity Officer" -- filled by one Mark Lloyd. There's absolutely no doubt about Lloyd's radical past: In his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he called for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He has a rather ... unique view on the First Amendment, too:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
This view isn't all that surprising considering how Lloyd feels about Hugo Chávez's Venezuela:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
Yeah -- it's weird that these folks "rebelled" when Chávez began seizing their property, eh?
Lloyd came up with this brainchild: He "wants private broadcasters to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs to fund public broadcasting." This shouldn't come as a surprise considering he co-wrote a report in 2007 for the far-left Center for American Progress titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" which concluded in large measure what Lloyd advocates above (operating cost funding).
All the above doesn't even take into consideration Obama's desire to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy by first, trying to ram it through Congress before anyone could have a chance to read the legislation, then by constantly either lying about its contents (and/or the administration's actual views on aspects of it) or grossly misrepresenting them. After that, the tact was to demonize the bill's opponents as Nazis, "evil-mongers," and at the very least "uninformed."
It also doesn't take into account Obama's overall continuation of Bush-era policies with regards to terrorism (er, "man-caused disasters") only briefly touched on above. Hell, even perpetual Bush administration critic Human Rights Watch conceded that (now, under Obama) "under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place for renditions." That's probably because the Obama admin. has continued the practice of rendition so widely criticized under President Bush! And remember how Bush was "shredding the Constitution" by holding terror suspects indefinitely? Obama is all for it! Remember the furor over Bush's warrantless wiretapping? Check out this power the Obama admin. will have. And what about "waterboarding?" It's torture, apparently, when Republican administrations utilize it, but probably isn't when Democratic ones do.
This is the change we've gotten -- a hard move to the economic and social left, while continuing (and even strengthening) Republican/conservative policies in the foreign arena and assuming authoritarian practices here at home.
Rehoboth's and Bethany's boardwalks make the country's Top 10 Best Boardwalks.
Click above and then click the slideshow link.
... it can be used for this:
A local man, apparently drunk after a night out at a New Haven club, wandered into a neighbor's home, stripped off his clothing and lay down in a child's bed, police said.
Teddy Brisseaux, 26, of Bruce Avenue, was charged early Sunday morning with second-degree burglary, disorderly conduct and risk of injury to a minor. He was freed after posting a $75,000 bond pending arraignment Sept. 1 in Superior Court.
Police were dispatched to a Bruce Avenue house shortly before 4:30 a.m. Sunday after being told about a house break-in at a home a block from the defendant's home.
When officers arrived, the home's residents were screaming for help from the second-floor windows.
As officers climbed the stairs to the second floor they spotted a pair of jeans, undershorts, a t-shirt and a set of keys along the route. The clothes smelled of alcohol and urine, police said.
Upstairs, police said, Brisseaux was sleeping naked in a child's bed.
The parents were asleep in their bedroom when their 6-year-old son ran into their room, woke them up and told them a man was sleeping in his bed. The boy said he was watching television in his room when the nude Brisseaux entered, lay down on the boy's bed and went to sleep. (Link.)
Brisseaux "admitted he had been out drinking at a New Haven club, police said, but denied going into the wrong home."
Right. He didn't go into the wrong home even though, well, he did. And best of all, his arrest is the cops' fault: Brisseaux blamed racial profiling for his arrest. (h/t to Taranto.)
The Messiah in 2006: "Combining Private and Public Health Insurance 'Worst of Both Worlds.'"
As Barack Obama and his media minions try to force healthcare reform down the throats of the American people, the President has repeatedly said that a public option would increase competition for private insurance companies and thereby drive down prices.
This apparently wasn't his view in 2006 when he said the expansion of medicare to include prescription drug coverage for seniors was "the worst of both worlds: we've got the price gouging of the private sector and the bureaucracy of the public sector." (Source.)
Check out the video:
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Obama Vs CIA: New WH Interrogation Unit Created As Panetta Threatens To Resign.
First place in the non-Council category was the Wall Street Journal with The Summer of Discontent.
Full results are here.
... but no worries if you're night-stick wielding Black Panthers at polling stations and a well-connected politician who endorsed the president early on.
So said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick this morning on CNN:
[CNN anchor Kiran] CHETRY: There's been, of course, some pushback, some criticisms about this situation. The law was changed actually back in 2004 to prevent a Republican governor from nominating a Republican, if John Kerry won the presidency. Now some are saying it's hypocrisy. It's what benefits one party, not necessarily the good of Massachusetts for this temporary appointment.
What do you say to some of those criticisms?
PATRICK: Well, I think the hypocrisy is that some of the folks making those criticisms are the ones who made this very proposal back in 2004. They thought it was good then. If it was good policy then, it's still good policy. It's like saying that the Congress of the United States shouldn't have passed the Civil Rights Act because they hadn't done it before. They considered it and voted it down before.
Whaaaa ...? Oh, right -- there's only hypocrisy on the right because the right fought the change in the law that required a special election in 2004 -- which Democrats wanted, including a vociferous Ted Kennedy -- because if John Kerry had won the election then, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would have named Kerry's successor. Suddenly, now, Kennedy (before he died) and the Dems feel that the law they themselves passed five years ago (they control the Mass. state legislature) is a bad idea!
Let's see -- why? Oh, I know! Because new governor Deval Patrick is a Democrat, and if he gets to choose a successor it'll be ... a Democrat! What a coincidence!
And is Patrick comparing [re]passing the replacement appointment power law to the Civil Rights Act (I assume, from the 1960s)? Really?? If so, isn't he essentially admitting that the GOP was so very morally right back in 2004? Sounds like it to me.
This week's submissions for the Watcher's Council:
* Bookworm Room - Why pay $10 for Julie & Julia just to suffer gratuitous insults
* Soccer Dad - Kindness to the cruel
* The Colossus of Rhodey - How Obama & Co. think we’re stupid
* Right Truth - What’s going on with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and America?
* The Glittering Eye - The Issue With the Public Option
* Mere Rhetoric - California Dems Increase Salaries Of Personal Staff, Refuse To Release New Payroll Details
* Bookworm Room - Texas Textbook Controversy
* The Provocateur - A Stunning ACORN Revelation
* Joshuapundit - Obama Vs CIA: New WH Interrogation Unit Created As Panetta Threatens To Resign
... and our LGOMB (local gaggle of moonbat bloggers) offers tribute and rips anyone who says a bad thing about him.
Yep, that's right -- the same LGOMB that wrote awful things about Bob Novak, Ronald Reagan, and Lord knows who else on the conservative side. Take a good gander at what commenter "DC" noted over at the LGOMB site earlier today:
Here are some quotes from the progressive, liberal brain trust of this website after [Robert] Novak’s recent passing:
Anonone: I guess he won’t be running over anybody with his car anymore. I wonder how many people were killed because of his outing of Valerie Plame?
Donfeces: Well done Anon1, well done!
Nemski: Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Hell.
Dorian Gray: He was just another star fucker with an agenda in the media industrial machine. Fuck him and fuck his memory.
Jason: Nemski beat me to my comment.
El Somnambulo: Sorry, but Novak was a total prick.
Von Cracker: My only regret is he cannot die again.
It's simply beyond parody, folks. (I would add, however, kudos to LGOMB contributors Unstable Isotope and Liberal Geek who actually brought a sense of civility -- and sanity -- to that whole hate-filled fiasco.)
Seth Leibsohn on the Obama/Holder decision to name a special prosecutor to investigate CIA abuses:
I’m sorry but I’m left cold by this. The man who masterminded the actual murder of 3,000 Americans and changed our country forever, wanting to do more, was told that his children would be threatened if another attack took place. Let’s recall what we’re actually doing right now: We use Predator drones to actually kill terrorists with missiles — and we actually kill their children, friends, and relatives at the same time.
We truly have forgotten 9/11.
Back in 2001, without naming names, there were serious, intellectual people in Washington who spoke among themselves of doing things far worse than this to prevent another attack. There were learned moralists and foreign-policy experts who privately discussed schemes like threatening to target Mecca if another attack took place. Of course that never became policy, and it wasn’t the administration, but that was the mindset of an awful lot of serious people.
Did we intern thousands of Arab citizens in this country, as FDR did with the Japanese? Did we execute saboteurs once we found them, as FDR authorized? Did we use weapons of mass destruction, as Harry Truman did? Did we suspend habeas corpus on U.S. citizens, as Abraham Lincoln did? No. We did not, and terrorists like KSM and Al-Nashiri, who has 17 dead U.S. sailors from the USS Cole on his hands, are given three squares a day, Korans, and prayer mats in our custody.
Indeed. If roughing up a guy like KSM to get valuable intel is so morally reprehensible, why in the hell would bombing him (and his family) to death via Predator drone be perfectly OK?
And what Leibsohn notes in his last paragraph above is what I've been saying for years now -- that Americans consider Lincoln to be one of, if not THE, greatest president in history despite his unilaterally ditching habeas corpus (a power reserved only for Congress), jailing and exiling political opponents for their views and speech, and condoning total war on civilians during the Civil War. FDR is an icon to the American Left, but note what he did above. Harry Truman OK'd the use of the most destructive weapon of war ever devised. And check it -- he had poll numbers like those of George W. Bush when he left office in 1953. But now? He's widely regarded as a successful president.
What George Bush did after 9/11 doesn't even approach the wrongness -- morally and legally -- of what these "great" and "successful" presidents did. And 9/11 was the most destructive foreign attack on American soil ever. The Obama administration's move for a special prosecutor was designed purely to deflect the discontent from his own policies back to his predecessor. Why else would Eric Holder go after the CIA now after Obama himself has said repeatedly that he has no interest in doing so? Doesn't Holder work for Obama?
The thing is, ultimately, this too will bite Obama in the backside. The American public as a whole has little sympathy for cold-blooded terrorist killers because some CIA agent threatened his family. To borrow from Jonah Goldberg from earlier today, just ask yourself if you sympathized with the guy in the chair from "Taken," or the Klansmen in the barber shop and the remote cabin in "Mississippi Burning."
Yeah. I thought not.
... but only if the latter pled guilty.
Check out this lengthy report on far-left radical Thai-French lawyer Jacques Vergès, whose latest client was Khieu Samphan, president of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Philly's Len Mfuasi thinks, unfortunately, what a lot of folks (in academia, mostly) do -- namely, that only whites can be racist:
Much has been written about black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest by a white police officer. Can we stop the bull and the overly childlike, deferential behavior and get down to the nitty gritty?
One, there is no such thing as being philosophically or socially color-blind; it's a physical condition. Two, even if one were color-blind, the ultimate historical racial division of black and white in this country would actually be even more pronounced. Three, one need only ask white antiracist writer Tim Wise and he will make the convincing argument that the only significant racism is white racism.
All this other anti-affirmative action and reverse racism stuff is nothing but linguistic hocus-pocus intended to maintain white privilege and white supremacy, and to soften the dialogue, once again, to make white people comfortable. There is only white racism - yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If African Americans had not been a resilient, determined, and courageous people, most would be dead. And, please, no more spreading the blame by trotting out the African chiefs who sold their own people. No one could have possibly known what Africans were in store for once they reached the United States.
It makes no difference if one's ancestors never owned slaves, were discriminated against for a brief period because of their own ethnicity, or were never guilty of a single racist gesture. Once all white ethnics were welcomed into whiteness, their lives and every opportunity granted them came at the expense of African Americans.
Yeesh. Who can add to that?
The Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act (H.R. 3501) was just introduced in the U.S. House. It's purpose?
The Act would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow an individual to deduct up to $3,500 for "qualified pet care expenses" - including veterinary care - for a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.
As you, your family members or your neighbors may be trimming budgets to make ends meet, innocent animals should not have to go without adequate care! Even a small tax deduction for responsible pet owners will go a long way to meet the needs of companion animals, ease the tax burden of those who own a pet (63 percent of all households) and may even encourage more people to provide loving homes to the countless animals filling America's shelters.
Y'know, what the hell. Anything that reduces Americans' ridiculous tax burden is OK by me!
(Thanks to Paul Falkowski for the tip!)
Election 2010: Polls show potential GOP challengers would beat Harry Reid.
It's the highest stakes ever for a Nevada election, and former boxer Sen. Harry Reid is on the ropes early. Either Republican Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden would knock out Reid in a general election, according to a recent poll of Nevada voters.
The results suggest the Democratic Senate majority leader will have to punch hard and often in order to retain his position as the most accomplished politician in state history, in terms of job status.
Nevadans favored Tarkanian over Reid 49 percent to 38 percent and Lowden over Reid 45 percent to 40 percent, according to the poll. (Source.)
When asked for comment, Reid said Tarkanian and Lowden are "evil mongers," and that's why he should be re-elected. (/sarcasm)
Reason's Damon Root takes us on a little history lesson.
Rich Lowry counts the reasons:
Stupid enough to think that a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement is just the thing to restore the country to fiscal health.
Stupid enough not to know that almost every entitlement known to man has cost more than originally estimated, with a congressional committee in 1967 underestimating by a factor of ten Medicare's cost by 1990.
Stupid enough not to realize that it is through budget trickery - the taxes begin immediately, the spending is put off for a few years - that the program in the House shows "only" a $239 billion deficit over the first ten years.
Stupid enough not to focus on how the gap between the House plan's revenue and spending steadily grows after the first ten years, making it a long-term budget buster.
Stupid enough to think increased preventive care will save the government money, just because Pres. Barack Obama constantly repeats it, despite all the independent studies to the contrary.
Stupid enough to believe that a program with no cost controls that can be discerned by the Congressional Budget Office will control costs.
Stupid enough not to worry that Obama's proposed superteam of technocrats operating outside normal political controls - the so-called Independent Medicare Advisory Council - will resort to rationing when costs continue to spiral upward.
Stupid enough to consider it wise to use several billion dollars in cuts from Medicare to create a new entitlement rather than to forestall Medicare's own looming insolvency, currently projected for 2017.
Stupid enough not to notice that the "public option" was explicitly designed by the Left as a stealthy path to single-payer, even as liberals continue to talk and write about its ultimate purpose openly.
Stupid enough to believe that we'll be able to keep our current health-care arrangements if we like them, even though the public option could throw tens of millions of people out of private insurance.
Stupid enough to trust the same people who came up with the public option as stealth single-payer to craft a co-op provision that isn't a stealth public option.
Stupid enough to credit Obama's assurances that the Democrats' reform isn't about government intervention in the health-care system when - even without the public option - it all-but-nationalizes health insurance.
Stupid enough not to see through Obama's sudden insistence on calling his plan "health-insurance reform" as empty poll-tested phrase-making.
Stupid enough to consider Obama's reform a good deal when its insurance regulations would increase premiums for most healthy people.
Stupid enough to think that the very real problem of people with pre-existing conditions locked out of the insurance market can't be alleviated short of a 1,000-page bill reordering the entire health-care system.
Stupid enough to buy Obama's cockamamie stories about unnecessary tonsillectomies and amputations - undertaken by greedy doctors to pad their profits - driving health-care costs.
Stupid enough to get gulled by rhetoric attacking special interests when almost all the special interests are backing Obama's plan for cowardly and self-interested reasons.
Stupid enough to consider new taxes on employment - imposed by the so-called employer mandate - a good idea during a weak economy with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate.
Stupid enough to condemn ordinary people angry and frightened enough to show up at town-hall meetings in every corner of the country as the product of an "astroturfing" conspiracy.
Stupid enough to blame nefarious Republicans for the faltering public support for an expensive, ungainly and contradictory health-care program passed out of four congressional committees on strict party-line votes.
Stupid enough to trust the good faith and public-spiritedness of an administration operating on Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's ram-it-through-now credo that a crisis should never go to waste.
There has been a chorus of those (locally, too) who've lambasted Obama healthcare critics as "liars" and "misleaders" and point to the [only] proposed [House] bill as "proof." Granted, some -- many -- critics have made the most of hyperbole for their own benefit. But in general, there is a LOT of skepticism about Obama and the Democrats' motives, mainly because they themselves have been caught in writing and on video saying one thing in the past, and another right now. Like Obama and some key Democrats saying (on tape) that they're supporters of a single-payer system, for one.
The House bill, H.R. 3200, excludes anyone who is not a legal resident of the United States from coverage of extended insurance provisions. Section 246 reads, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
But then why did Democrats vote down -- on party lines -- amendments that would have required verification of residency status before receiving any benefits? For instance,
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) offered an amendment in the markup that would have ensured the laws barring illegal aliens from legally signing up for Medicaid would also apply to the new government run healthcare system that Democrats are determined to construct.
The Dems shot that down. Why? Rosenberg has [much] more here.
Another example is abortion. Obama now insists that any new plan will not cover abortions. But the AP disagrees in a recent article, Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA) stated that abortion coverage is and should be in the bill, and Obama himself said that "reproductive health services (ie, abortion) will be 'at the heart' of his health care plan."
Obama supporters and their allies in the MSM have gone out of their way to portray healthcare critics as "uninformed," "zealots," "racists" and even "Nazis." In actuality, however, most of them are just your average joes who're [rightly, in my opinion] deeply concerned about Obama and the Democrats' true intentions. And, again, Obama and his party have no one to blame but themselves for this concern.
New York Gov. David Paterson thinks there's a racial conspiracy against him:
Gov. David Paterson played the race card in a big way today, suggesting he is facing tougher questions about his performance and political viability than the governors of most other struggling states because he is black.
During a wide-ranging interview with DN columnist and radio personality Errol Louis this morning, Paterson said he feels an effort is being "orchestrated" to get him to bow out of the 2010 race.
Paterson alleged he and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick - both of whom are the first African Americans to hold their respective positions and are tanking in the polls - are being treated unfairly by the media due to the color of their skin.
The governor said he thinks the same thing is happening to the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, who also seen his approval rating drop due to his controversial efforts to overhaul the health care system. (Source with h/t to The Corner.)
Sigh. OK, first, yeah -- there just might be an orchestrated effort to get him to bow out of the 2010 race. So? That's the way politics works. If it looks like you'll have absolutely NO chance to win because your poll numbers, popularity and yes -- perhaps competence -- absolutely suck, the party essentially has an obligation to consider a move. It's not as if it's unprecedented in the "enlightened" Democrat Party. Remember Bob Torricelli? How 'bout the 1980 Democratic primaries with one James Carter and Theodore Kennedy? Etc.
Second, Paterson thinks Obama is being treated unfairly ... by the media?? What freakin' planet does this gov live on?? Hell, that comment alone makes me question this dude's very sanity!
Paterson also said,
"And I submit that the same kind of treatment that Deval Patrick is receiving right now in Massachusetts, and I’m receiving; the way in which the New York State Senate was written about, calling them a bunch of people with thick necks - they’re talking about Malcolm Smith and John Sampson - that we’re not in the post-racial period."
It's also an indication that we're not yet in a "post-racial" period when virtually any criticism of [a minority] politician is dubbed "racist." Even when fairly obvious criminal activity is discovered, "racism" rears its "ugly head." (See William Jefferson, Marion Barry, and Alcee Hastings, for instance.)
As fellow Watcher's Council member Rhymes With Right recently commented here at Colossus, "As I've said several times and in several places, the abuse of the race card by liberals is rendering the term "racist" meaningless -- and in the process, delegitimizing it for use against the small amount of actual racism that exists in this country."
“The Obama administration expects the federal deficit over the next decade to be $2 trillion bigger than previously estimated, White House officials said Friday, a setback for a president already facing a Congress and public wary over spending.”
Prepare for a "The problems we faced we're 'more severe' than we initially thought." Or to put it another way, "This is not the deficit I once knew."
Matt Welch in Reason.com:
So, Missouri School of Journalism Assistant Prof. Charles Davis, a self-described "near-absolutist First Amendment advocate," is making a splash with this column advocating that newspapers create a "hate" beat. The "best way to beat hatemongering," his subhed advises, "is to report it." I didn't realize that we were now teaching strategies for "beating" various societal phenomena in J-school, but I will admit to a certain unfamiliarity with academia.
Anyway, some of Davis' writing I think illustrates, in an unintended way, why people distrust both journalists and those who deliver lectures on the topic. For instance:
Hate, shuffled off stage in the post-racial haze of the election of the nation's first black president, is back with a vengeance. Hate, if it ever truly threatened to leave the political stage, is most definitely back, larger and nastier than ever.
To get all journalistically theoretical for a moment, what is the definition of journalism? Well, I don't know, but I do know that one thick chunk of the idea is to write or say (or aim to write and say) things that are unequivocally 100 percent true, and hopefully verified in some way. This is even more true, if such a thing is mathematically possible, for those who deliver lectures on all that should be true and good about journalism.
What, class, do we notice about Davis' statement above? IT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. We used to have slavery in this country, and Jim Crow laws, and all kinds of officially sanctioned, legalized discrimination against disfavored minorities. And you want to tell me that hate is "larger and nastier than ever"? We had a CIVIL WAR in this country, where people not only brought their legally licensed firearms to townhalls, but they MURDERED THE SHIT OUT OF ONE ANOTHER. How many people died in racially fueled street riots 41 years ago, compared to how many died in racially fueled street riots in 2009? This little couplet, tossed off without evident concern, as if OF COURSE we all know this is true, is blatantly, sophomorically, and insultingly untrue. It's an advertisement for the author's fundamental lack of seriousness about the very subject he aims to address.
Of course, as I and many others predicted way back, just like in the 2008 campaign any criticism of Barack Obama -- no matter HOW legitimate -- will be painted by supporters as "racist" or at the least "racially tinged." Welch goes on to note the kind of hate that will escape this new [liberal] journalist "beat": It's the kind that assumes, lack of evidence notwithstanding, that we are always – but especially now that liberal Democrats run the country – on the verge of a race war.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with The view from the other side re health care.
First place in the non-Council category was zenpundit with On Afghanistan and Strategy.
Full results are here.
* Mere Rhetoric - Human Rights Watch Earns Their Saudi Pay, Publishes Another Thinly-Sourced Report Demonizing Israel
* Right Truth - We have an opportunity to prevent a disaster
* Soccer Dad - Still stuck on “moderate”
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Gadgets that make you look like a tool
* The Glittering Eye - The Healthcare Reform We Need
* Joshuapundit - ‘Moderate’ Fatah Declares War On Israel
* The Provocateur - Dr. Andrew Agwunobi Strikes Again IV
* Rhymes With Right - About The Gun-Toters At Town Halls And Presidential Events
* Bookworm Room - The view from the other side re health care
So says leftist-libertarian Net Hentoff:
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
Read the whole thing.
Imagine if George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the “time for talking is over.” Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails in the pursuit of “fishy” dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott derided critics as “evil-mongers” the way Harry Reid recently described town-hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay had called critics “un-American” the way Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.
I imagine we'd see at least a week's worth of derisive posts here.
In a move that’s as in-your-face as you can get, Manchester, NH Mayor and Republican candidate for Congress Frank Guinta will host a health care town hall in Exeter on August 31st. In the press release announcing the town hall, the Guinta campaign doesn’t even pretend that the move is anything other than a slap at incumbent Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01).
“It is unthinkable, that an elected leader who herself is famous for her attendance and outspoken opposition at her predecessors’ town halls, would simply refuse to allow the same opportunity to her constituents," said Guinta.
Shea-Porter, who was a vocal anti-war activist before winning her seat in 2006, essentially hounded then-Republican Congressman Jeb Bradley at his town halls in the years leading up to their race.
Shea-Porter was once forcibly removed from a George W. Bush speech in Portsmouth for protesting while wearing a shirt that read, “Turn your back on Bush.” She also once protested in front of the State House in Concord alongside demonstrators dressed as Nazis.
'Ya gotta love it. More here.
The Blackberry. I agree with writer Daniel Harrison-- if you absolutely don't need it outside of work, put the damn thing away. There's rarely a bigger tool at the bar, restaurant or golf course than the friend/acquaintance/newly introduced someone that spends every passing second on his/her BB surfing the 'net for ... whatever.
iPod accessories. I always get a chuckle out of folks that scoff at the fact that I have one of the first model iPods (the Nano), that it's a hand-me-down (I "inherited" it from my daughter when we "upgraded" hers to the latest model a Christmas or so ago), and that I don't have a "neat" case for it or some fancy headphones. Well let's see -- gee, I'm in my mid-40s so I could care freakin' less what my iPod LOOKS like! As long as it holds and plays the music I like, I am golden, hear? Hell, some of my best friends don't even own an iPod yet, so at least I'm ahead of that curve! Oh, and speaking of headphones, I'm with Harrison -- WTF is the deal with having one hang uselessly all over one's self? Isn't the idea to listen to music in stereo?
Linux. I saw the story about these dudes on "60 Minutes" a while back and was intrigued. But Harrison has it right: "... a lot of Linux users out there give the whole thing a poor name. They forget that most people don't know as much as they do about computers. Some people garden, write poetry, fall in love or ... er, bloviate about gadgetry." Indeed. What layman wants to bother to learn/use a system that reminds one of the pre-Windows DOS days? These tools remind me of the folks that derided AOL users back in the '90s. I mean, God forbid that a company make [new] Internet technology a piece of cake for the everyman! Harrison continues:
Please don't confuse your fanaticism with superiority and, for the love of Jobs, stop telling us we're sheep under the sway of Microsoft. No one likes Comcast either, but until it's convenient to string our own fiber optic cable we're sticking with it. (Msnbc.com is a Microsoft-NBC Universal joint venture.)
Cool if: You're not heaping disdain on the rest of us, or maybe if you're in charge of a server farm.
Not cool if: You feel your mastery of computers excuses your inability to control a neck-beard.
Such putzes are in line with those who, for instance, wanted to boycott the revamped Star Wars films (y'know, the "special editions" that made use of new CGI effects). I mean ... why?? Get an F'ing grip.
The Bluetooth. This is by FAR the gadget that makes you look like biggest tool imaginable. The ONLY place this piece of equipment is necessary is in the car, where it actually makes sense. But at the grocery store? The mall? Going for a walk? At the MOVIES?? (Yes, I've been totally miffed at morons who wear their BTs in the movies -- that freakin' annoying blinking blue light in the ear-piece distracting the hell out of me as I try to keep my eyes on what I'm supposed to -- the movie screen. Unreal.) Then there's the parents who come to school for a parent conference (usually because their "angel" has been suspended or gotten detention) with their BTs mounted; you try to ask them "Can I help you?" but they're clueless. You're ignored while they continue their convo -- oblivious as to why they're at the school in the first place. And they wonder why their kid misbehaves?
Longtime conservative journalist and pundit Bob Novak has died. I always liked him best as the conservative side in "Crossfire."
I wonder how soon it'll be before our sick LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) begin celebrating.
I mean hey -- what's good for the goose ...
Anti-war protesters want John Yoo fired. How does this "move the conversation forward?" How does "silencing Yoo's voice do a service to democracy?"
I plan to do a lot more shopping at Whole Foods in the coming weeks. Mostly in response to the moronic boycott of the store now gaining momentum on the left.
Let me see if I have the logic correct here: Whole Foods is consistently ranked among the most employee-friendly places to work in the service industry. In fact, Whole Foods treats employees a hell of a lot better than most liberal activist groups do. The company has strict environmental and humane animal treatment standards about how its food is grown and raised. The company buys local. The store near me is hosting a local tasting event for its regional vendors. Last I saw, the company’s lowest wage earners make $13.15 per hour. They also get to vote on what type of health insurance they want. And they all get health insurance. The company is also constantly raising money for various philanthropic causes. When I was there today, they were taking donations for a school lunch program. In short, Whole Foods is everything leftists talk about when they talk about “corporate responsibility.”
And yet lefties want to boycott the company because CEO John Mackey wrote an op-ed that suggests alternatives to single payer health care? It wasn’t even a nasty or mean-spirited op-ed. Mackey didn’t spread misinformation about death panels, call anyone names, or use ad hominem attacks. He put forth actual ideas and policy proposals, many of them tested and proven during his own experience running a large company. Is this really the state of debate on the left, now? “Agree with us, or we’ll crush you?”
These people don’t want a dicussion. They don’t want to hear ideas. They want you to shut up and do what they say, or they’re going to punish you.
... our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) would be the skinniest people on the planet.
Check out #2 on the list.
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Mirage: Obama’s Middle East Strategy.
First place in the non-Council category was The Chronicle of Higher Education with The Shame of Academe and Fascism, Then and Now (nominated by yours truly).
Full results are here.
Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
"Republican pressure?" Republican? There is absolutely NO NEED for Obama to "bow" to the GOP for ANYTHING. The Democrats have a large majority in the House and a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Thus, why would the leader of the party have to "bow" to the opposition at all?
Oh, let's see, perhaps -- as the AP conveniently omits -- that "mounting opposition" just happens to be among the American public at large.
But 'ya make the GOP the seeming "bad guy" in all this somehow, right?
Remember how Bush was supposed to be the idiot who went into Iraq without a plan, while Obama was supposed to be the cool methodical one? But Reich is admitting that despite all the Administration hoopla, there’s still no plan. Or, possibly, that the White House has a plan, but won’t tell us what it is. And yet the people who don’t want to see a bill — some bill, doing who-knows-what — rammed through in the dead of night are somehow the ones who are ignorant and being manipulated. Right.
It sure is amusing watching administration defenders attempt to discredit anyone who questions the "bill," when these very same defenders at the same time say "there is no 'definite' bill yet." At least they're imitating The Messiah to a tee -- lying and making outrageous statements, then saying that "I didn't really say/mean that."
By doing the job that the MSM won't do -- won't do even knowingly.
Looks like Patterico not only did the job the MSM didn't do, but revealed that the local paper knew the woman in question was a fake -- and knew she was an Obama delegate -- and just flat out refused to report that in its story.
That's how blogging should work. Not like how these idiots do it.
Peggy Noonan: "Obama turns out to be brilliant at becoming, not being, president."
They must just be "uninformed" "Nazis," or better yet -- "evil-mongers" as Harry Reid most recently has said:
CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.
Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care. (Source.)
McCain's birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out
McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.
"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."
"If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain," [attorney Jill] Pryor said in a recent interview. "But it is certainly not a frivolous issue."
Contrast this to the MSM coverage of the so-called "birther" movement, eh?
My old cohort Patterico at [the now defunct] "Oh, THAT Liberal Media" blog has the scoop.
Question: With the Internet/blogs/YouTube the way it is now, why in the world do idiots like this woman even consider attempting this nonsense?
Nancy Pelosi doesn't refer to anti-war protesters disrupting her [past] townhall meeting as Nazis! She even says "It's OK" when a moderator asks those shouting to cease (at about 3:50 into the vid):
Lawrence O'Donnell, substituting for Chris Matthews on "Hardball" and getting embarrassed:
Victor Davis Hanson reminds us all.
Duke's John David Lewis breaks down the proposed healthcare bill for us all in straightforward, no-nonsense lingo.
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors:
We are now seeing the manifestation of subconscious racism from many Caucasian Americans whose personalities tend to narcissism, authoritarianism, and paranoia. The prospect of any social reform likely to promote equal rights and justice for all threatens their narcissism and, thus, intensifies their paranoia. This, in turn, empowers their authoritarianism. To their senses, the reality of an Afro-American President is a heinous affront to those who uphold The American Way. What to do? It cannot be addressed as in the days of Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs. Retaliation today requires an indirect, underhanded approach, like one couched in the rhetoric of No Nothing pundits and so-called Christian evangelists, one with hysterical appeals to God, The Constitution, and Free Enterprise, and one that represents the sacred wisdom of our miserly, conceited, slavery-abetting, Caucasian forefathers. So, why not stage political brawls at public meetings where common citizens will gather to engage their elected leaders in civil discussion of the Afro-American President's proposals to improve the quality and lower the cost of health care? Sounds like a winner to me!
Hey -- WTF is an angry leftist doing using such an anachronistic term like "Afro-American?" How insensitive!
Geez -- Costa Rican prez and former Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias has been diagnosed with swine flu:
Nobel Peace laureate and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias said Tuesday that he has swine flu, showing that not even a head of state is safe from the virus that has caused worldwide concern but relatively few deaths.
The 69-year-old president and Nobel Peace Prize winner said in a statement that he was quarantined at home and is being treated with the anti-flu medicine oseltamivir.
Hmm, I passed by his house numerous times when I was in CR (late June-early July). Hopefully I'm not infected! ;-) The CR prez's house is a fairly non-descript domicile -- right on the main "boulevard" and only slightly larger than the surrounding homes. It's only about a mile from my in-laws' house. And there's usually only one guard on duty in front!
I am wondering why all the hubbub about swine flu. As the article says, there's "worldwide concern but relatively few deaths" regarding the flu. If anything, it's currently quite less severe than the "regular" flu, but I believe I read some info that the real concern is that it will mutate into a more virulent strain. If it continues to hang around as it has been, such a mutation would rack up a bigger death toll.
In a semi-related note, I was barred from donating blood a couple weeks ago because I was in Costa Rica for a time earlier this summer. If I had remained in San José, the capital, I would have been allowed to donate. But since I trekked to the Pacific coast beaches for four days while there, I was categorized as a "malaria risk." Not allowed to donate for one full year. Geez.
... for other Harvard profs to claim racism:
A second black Harvard professor accused the Cambridge police of racism yesterday in wrongfully arresting him outside his home nearly three years ago.
S. Allen Counter's (a prominent Harvard Medical School professor and head of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations) attorney, Ozell Hudson Jr., told the Globe yesterday that Counter is considering his legal options over the manner he says he was treated after he complied with a request to step outside his house in December 2006 when police arrived to investigate a call by his former wife. She reported to police that Counter had tried to push their teenage daughter out of a moving car during an argument.
Counter said he had not previously publicized the arrest because he feared that police would harass him and his family. But he told Harvard colleagues about the incident and said he felt he had been mistreated because he is black.
Counter also said “I was polite, and yet police lied and said I was loud, just as they did with Professor Gates.’’ The police lied and Gates wasn't loud? Hmm ... wonder what the Harvard professorial definition of "loud" is.
Joe the Plumber redux: Kenneth Gladney to Tour U.S. soon to discuss individual rights in new educational program, "Project Liberty." (Link.)
What is this predilection of those on the Right to turn people involved in relatively minor incidents ... into "experts?" I mean, I feel sorry for Gladney and all, but he's going on tour now?
Good luck. We all saw the "expertise" of Joe the Plumber. (/sarcasm)
Democrat politician votes against requiring photo ID to vote; wants to see photo ID for people to attend townhall meetings!!
Barack Obama mere moments ago at a New Hampshire townhall meeting: “I have not said that I was a single payer supporter."
Actually, you did, Mr. President:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.”
And why do you keep referring to what your plan is and what we "want to do?" You don't have a plan out there yet! And who's the "we?" The only proposed plan currently available is that of the House of Representatives. Even some of your most vociferous supporters keep reminding us of this -- even though they say that, ridiculously, since there's only one proposed bill -- the House's -- we therefore should not debate its contents.
From of all places, Salon. Here's a teaser:
Blacks and Latinos, it appears, are allowed to hold conventionally conservative social views about gay rights, abortion and (in the case of blacks) immigration without being mocked and denounced by elite white liberals in the pages of the Washington Post and Mother Jones, as long as they vote for the Democratic Party on the basis of other issues.
Much has been made of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's note that
These (townhall) disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
So, is it "un-American" to "drown out" opposing views? I wonder, especially considering these examples of discussions about privatizing Social Security from 2005:
"a boisterous crowd which frequently interrupted the discussion with shouts and hard nosed questions. ... Democrats in the audience who were interrupting the panel.... the crowd erupted in anger... Democrats in the audience started shouting him down again."
"By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security."
"Shaken by raucous protests at open "town hall"-style meetings last month ... Santorum was among dozens of members of Congress who ran gantlets of demonstrators and shouted over hecklers at Social Security events last month. Many who showed up to protest were alerted by e-mails and bused in by anti-Bush organizations such as MoveOn.org and USAction, a liberal advocacy group. They came with prepared questions and instructions on how to confront lawmakers."
Not only are these folks "un-American" using the Pelosi-Hoyer standard, they also did precisely what the Left is accusing the GOP of doing now -- planning on how to disrupt meetings.
Did any GOP lawmakers refer to these protestors as "un-American?" I don't know. I sure didn't hear about it. If they did, you can be sure we would have heard about it in the MSM, just as we did when the occasional conservative/Republican called an anti-Iraq War protestor "un-American" or something similar. But I did hear about these Social Security protestors, though -- and it was usually referred to positively by the MSM. After all, can't have anyone touching Social Security now, can we? But when folks are concerned about a federal takeover of 1/5 of the US economy, well, they're somehow "overreacting!"
And where are Pelosi and Hoyer (not to mention their defenders noted above) when this "un-American" prevention-of-discussion" activity happens regularly on American college campuses? Anecdotes abound of conservative speakers on campuses being heckled, shouted down and even physically attacked. Again (as I've noted many, many times here), this happens all the time. And this doesn't even take into account the myriad speech codes, kangaroo college "courts" and so-called disciplinary procedures that universities utilize to suppress views contrary to the "prevailing orthodoxy."
But if the Left suddenly has determined that "loudly protesting" something is "un-American," then why do we make such a big deal of the McCarthy Era in American history? After all, there were Communists that had infiltrated our government (and other cultural institutions) and Communism was dedicated to destroying the United States one way or another. Was Elia Kazan wrong to expose those who were associated with Communism? The conventional wisdom (mostly among the Left) is that what Kazan did was "un-American," not what those who he exposed did!
So, which is "un-American?" Actively supporting an ideology that wishes to annihilate our own system of government ... or boisterous protests in favor of preserving our system of government? If the Left really believes that the latter is "un-American," then they also need to believe that the former is likewise so. If not, then they have a rather unique view of "American."
Personally, I feel that the current anti-Obama healthcare reform protestors should indeed be respectful and allow our elected officials to say their piece. Contrariwise, our elected officials need to listen to THE PEOPLE, and deal with the bit of anger they may express -- and even the occasional "boos" and shout-outs. After all, that's what our elected officials are -- elected officials. WE are THEIR bosses, not the other way around.
And while I certainly feel that the Communists of the 50s (and before and after) are "un-American" (again, their very belief system desires the demise of America), the mere fact that they reside in the United States gives them the right to hold their beliefs, and to be free of government coercion and investigation unless of course, like anybody else, they become an actual threat. (Holding beliefs and informing others of said beliefs is not an actual threat -- as long as the beliefs and informing are sans violence.)
Overall, it seems to me that the Left is extremely touchy about being called "un-American," but are awfully quick to use the term (and similar epithets) when their opponents do something that they do not like. And it's bolstered by the fact that the MSM will immediately jump on a conservative that has dubbed a liberal politician so ... not so much the other way around. Thankfully, the new media is changing all that -- and exposing long-known hypocrisies.
UPDATE: How easily predictable.
... or something like that.
I love this e-mail sent to National Review's Jonah Goldberg:
Okay, so Nancy Pelosi has now put down in writing that voters protesting at Town Hall meetings are unAmerican. We just spent eight years with the President Bush repeating ad nauseam that protestors are engaging their right to free speech as Americans, and eight years of Nancy Pelosi screaming that dissent is the greatest form of patriotism, and eight years of Nancy Pelosi practically begging some elected Republican to call left-wing activists unAmerican (although to no avail).
And now, BANG—protesting is suddenly unpatriotic and unAmerican. WHAT IS THE POINT of arguing with the Pelosi-Obama left? Perhaps it shores up the troops on our own side; that's about all I can come up with. It sure isn't entertaining. The arguments are so infantile, it's as intellectually engaging as watching a three day marathon of The View. Watching Pelosi/Obama is a little like watching my dog battle the dog on the other side of the mirror, except my dog is pretty damn funny.
And that's the size of computers in the future.
I discuss the matter over at The Comics of Rhodey.
So admits frequent Keith Olbermann guest Jonathan Alter. I mean, notice how he backs up Keithy's assertion that "the right-wing misinformation machine has scored a victory" on bringing up the single-payer system that Obama desires ... then admits the right-wing just may have a point!
OLBERMANN: The right-wing misinformation machine has scored a victory on this to get this into people's heads. Have they not?
ALTER: Yes. I mean, they just shout all day, Rush Limbaugh and all of rest of them, that this is a Trojan horse for a single-payer plan. And it
is, you know-it is possible that over time, this will morph into something
that resembles single-payer. But it's not right now, and the insurance
companies are in no danger of going out of business.
ALTER: ... under this bill, under any version of this bill. So, if we do end up with a single-payer plan, it won't be for many, many years. And people argue to the contrary are just lying about the particulars of this program. Obama, by design, did not move to single-payer because he realized that the country wasn't ready for it.
Isn't that precisely the worry that this video shows?
In addition, check out moron Keithy in the following segment. He says the tea party protesters are like "Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists," and when talking about the violence at the St. Louis town-hall meeting last Thursday, never mentions that "it was SEIU Carnahan supporters who were arrested and it was a black conservative and a woman who were attacked!" (h/t to Gateway Pundit.)
I was thinking what I read in Gateway Pundit's comments: From the perspective of those on the Left, isn't comparing anybody to Hamas and/or Hezbollah a good thing?
This is where we're at: Where our representatives shout at us -- for asking a simple freakin' question. (And how pathetic is this rep.? Nice answers there, bud.)
From Jim Treacher:
If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King. Al Sharpton would have a whole rack of new suits.
There's been a lot of talk about the healthcare bill's Section 1233, the "end-of-life" counseling provision. While some on the Right have claimed such counseling is mandatory (it's not explicitly so), even some Democrats are worried about it:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
Of course, those who remain hoodwinked by The Messiah (despite mild written protestations once in a blue moon) will continue to scream and holler about the opposition's "lies and distortions." But, not surprisingly, regarding this topic, their counter-evidence makes no mention of the financial incentive that doctors would have to get that "voluntary" chat.
Is that surprising? Of course not.
Levin's concerns are telling. It sort of reminds me that paying federal income taxes is "voluntary" too. It says so, right in the [interminable] law. But we know what happens if you volunteer not to pay.
Case in point: our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers (LGOMB) claims that George Sodini, the nutjob who killed three women at a Pittsburgh area fitness club, is a "right-wing misogynist." While the latter term certainly seems to apply, it appears that only because Sodini used a gun ... he must be a "right-winger."
Except, well, Sodini's own words seem to get in the way:
I have been in barrooms and church groups. The worst people by far are the religious types. Especially a right-wing, stiff-faced fundie [sic] like Andy. A condescending, demeaning, passive-aggresive [sic] person. Frigid, rigid, linear and totally inflexible. Being a very serious person, he cannot hide his frown-lined face. He better not try to smile; lest his face might crack.
I knew children of parents who grew up in strict religious homes. Religion has a certain stink to it of guilt, shame, fear, and that moral standard that always contradicts the natural tendencies and desires of a person.
Yep. A "right-wing" killer who hates right-wingers. That's our LGOMB for 'ya!
Lawmakers disclosed they spent about $13 million traveling the world last year, a tenfold increase since 1995, when travel records first were made available electronically. The travel costs are covered by an unlimited fund created by a three-decade-old law. This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said he couldn't comment on the trip for security reasons. A spokeswoman for Mr. Shelby said the same.
Ah yes, of course. "Security reasons."
Someone needs to shout these idiots down at a town-hall meeting.
... the tough, er uh, weak cry "racism." We've already seen it with that "Obama-as-Joker" poster; now, others are "on the case":
-- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker says that "'45 to 65%' of the [healthcare] protesters are motivated by racism."
-- The NY Times' Paul Krugman: "But they're (healthcare protesters) probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is." (Link.)
Does this sound familiar? It should: it's a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.
Many people hoped that last year's election would mark the end of the "angry white voter" era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.
-- MSNBC opines that town-hall protests are "a threat to Obama's life": "The town hall confrontations are turning violent....Where is all of this heading? New fears for the safety of America’s first African-American president."
-- The healthcare industry is "playing with fire":
It is playing with the racist hatred of some white Americans who cannot accept that we have an African American president. They are using the very same people who are the “birthers”. When you consider that 58% of Republicans and most Southerners either do not believe that the President is a citizen or are unsure - you have a group of people who are deluded and do not want to accept the outcome of the election: an African American holds the most powerful office in the land. These people are desperately holding on to an America of the past not the future.
-- Racism at these town-hall events is "always implicit."
-- Conservatives "often can’t help themselves from indulging in racism." So it is with healthcare, too (since the message of the one placard was obviously lost on this guy).
-- Lastly, locally, frequent Delaware Politics commenter "noman" let's us all know what topics actually mean "racism."
To coin a cliché, "The truth always comes out."
First place in the Council category was Soccer Dad with Worth every penny of “free.”
First place in the non-Council category was Political Math with Obama Health Care Reform and Wait Times Visualization (In Lego!).
Full results are here.
I rarely link to popular pundit stuff (because they usually just scratch the surface of current/popular topics), but this O'Reilly "Talking Points" vid from last night is spot-on:
Indeed. So what if some of the anti-Obama healthcare protesters are organized? How does that make their protests "illegitimate?" Several [local] bloggers are despondent over reports that [some of] these townhall protests are planned. Were they -- and MSNBC, notably -- similarly concerned over who organized the protests against the Iraq War? What about those who plan to disrupt conservative speakers at American college campuses? Of course not. In fact, regarding the latter, it's hilarious to the Left that people such as David Horowitz and Ann Coulter get pies, eggs or whatever thrown at them, and that they're given no opportunity to give their speech.
I believe that these healthcare protesters should be respectful and allow the politicians (or whatever White House surrogates) to say their piece. Then disagree with them and protest them. And there's no harm in the occasional "boo" or "hiss" when they say something incredibly stupid (like Arlen Specter did when he said they have "to act quickly").
UPDATE: The White House's response to the protesters: “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." Does anyone recall the Left's reaction to George Bush and Co.'s response to Iraq War protesters?
Don't get me wrong -- I think both White House's have (had) the right to respond. But the MSM and elite opinion is that only one of them rightfully has such a right.
... what to do when you're flummoxed about angry folks showing up at town hall meetings? Why, refer to them as Nazis! Here's our very own Speaker of the House in action:
"They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." (Link.)
Keep it up, Nance. 2010 is right around the corner.
Headline in the Washington Post: Obama as The Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face.
Of course. It just couldn't be anything else, could it? Y'know, like maybe The Messiah's ridiculous policies? But hell, anyone with half a brain knew that when the heat got too hot, the administration always had "that" card up its proverbial sleeve -- the race card.
And since the Angry Left has its panties in such a bunch over this poster, here's a trip down memory lane.
UPDATE: MSDNC is on the "case" now, too.
This time it's lib talker Mike Malloy desiring that Glenn Beck commit suicide:
I have a good news to report; Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months.
This stuff sure is catching among so-called "progressives," isn't it?
UPDATE: Amazing. Before I had even posted this this morning, the deranged "progressive" who wrote the comment linked immediately above wrote this at around 9am today:
David Burris, you are a fat disgusting lying human being who really should consider suicide as your next failed career move. Don’t worry, you won’t succeed at that either.
At least this pathetic piece of scum is consistent.
The White House is so upset that people think its goal is ultimately a federal takeover of the healthcare system that it's put out a "debunking" video. It claims that the president is being taken "out of context." Yeah, "out of context" on his very own words!
Here's a video of Obama in 2007 stating that employer health coverage can be eliminated over a period of years, and also shows him stating in 2003 that he's a proponent of a single-payer healthcare system. In addition, there are several clips of Democratic congressfolk expressing similar sentiments.
Here's the White House response video.
All you people who own and drive gas-guzzling SUVs out there, as far as i'm concerned, you are all eco-terrorists! You need to be immediately arrested, jailed and have your vehicles forcibly confiscated from you. I advocate long prison terms for your willful idiocy!
You are destroying your children's future by condemning them to a planet that will not support life anymore because you are belching out ungodly amounts of CO2 from your SUVs, causing irreversible global climate change to occur.
Are you aware that millions and millions of innocent men, women and children are dying on this planet every single day, just so you can live in million dollar condos and drive around in luxury vehicles?
I urge the Obama administration and the state legistlatures to immediately criminalize all SUVs and stop this insanity before it destroys us all! If you wasteful American idiots resist, may you be either thrown into government-operated FEMA concentration camps or taken out and shot.
Take it from Richard Heinberg and his book, “The Party's Over.” Get it through your thick heads!
Enough of your madness!
Now where have I seen a line like that which is underlined above uttered by a local blogger ...? Oh yeah -- right here!
Despite this vulgarity (LOL), Sheldon Mayer's yarn may be the best I've yet read in this DC sci-fi title. It's sort of a "Timecop" tale, where an unscrupulous 25th century dude plans to make himself rich back in the 19th century. It utilizes a "closed loop" time geometry; the protagonist gets rich by betting with Martian industrial diamonds. However, these diamonds contain a strain of the "Martian Flu" which proceeds to wipe out all of humanity in a few years! Our protagonist discovers this sordid fact after he jaunts sixty years up the timestream (still in the 19th century) to take advantage of his accumulated riches. Oops. He can't even jaunt back to his home 25th century because humanity is dead -- time travel will never have been invented, so his traveling device is useless! But ... if dead humanity prevents time travel from being invented, why is our protagonist still alive?? He'd never have been born!
(Also at The Comics of Rhodey.)
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors:
Tell the truth, you fucking propagandists radicals. You're trying to create an environment that leads to violence against an elected president. You are dangerous, violent bunch of babies. You need to be rounded up* before you kill the president. You're race-baiting douche bags and I HATE YOU ALL. I'm going to spit on you at your tea parties and I'm going to shout you down everywhere I see you. I might even jack your jaw! How's that for some free speech!?
*Who's that sound like, hmm?
Arlen Specter hears it from a crowd for this asinine statement on healthcare legislation:
... the douche who ridiculously soups up a car like a Dodge Neon with a massively loud exhaust pipe, prodigious spoiler and fancy wheel rims ... or the douche who drives a pick-up truck with tires the size of my freakin' house?
Remember how no one who makes less than $250K would see a tax increase? Heh:
To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.”
Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.
“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”
Remember George Bush #1's "Read my lips" pledge? What happened to him as a result of breaking that?
Video courtesy of Pajamas Media.
Dohn Harsbarger in a July 30 News Journal letter to the editor:
However, the facts are that Canadians are enthusiastic about their public system and consider the conservative politician who championed it to be a national hero.
Added to the blogroll at right ...
Edolphus Towns, the New York Democrat who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says he's "too busy" to look into the sweet loan deals that Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad got from Countrywide.
Really? Shortly after the whole "Gates-gate" mess, Towns expressed keen interest "in holding hearings into the matter of Gates' arrest, and more broadly looking into the issue of racial profiling by law enforcement."
Apparently that wouldn't keep him from his "other work to do on the causes of and fixes for the financial crisis!"
(h/t: Andy McCarthy.)