Watch out!! Democrat Senator "I'm A" Dick Durbin is -- wait for it! -- fed up with critics of the Boss Obama administration regarding the situation on the southern border. Why? Because the problem was started by ... George W. Bush. In 2008. Six f***ing years ago.
"It was the Homeland Security Act signed by President George W. Bush which says we treat these children humanely,” Durbin said.
Of course, we could humanely send them back to their own country. Not to mention the Act in question was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Also not to mention, a thing called THE LAW has never stopped this administration from doing whatever the hell it's wanted in the past, but all of a sudden ... well, George W. Bush, dammit!
Remember, these folks are putting out the funny books these days. Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz retweeting Senate Leader Harry Reid's(!!) tweet:
The only thing I want to hear from Iraq war architects is an apology. pic.twitter.com/vPeGmOyP2W— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 18, 2014
Yes, this is the same Harry Reid who -- wait for it! -- voted to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq unilaterally. Note that last word, too.
Oh, but wait -- Reid and others (notably Hillary Clinton and "Plugs" Biden) would later claim their votes were "only to continue diplomacy."
Maybe Bush, Cheney, et. al. can claim "Oh gosh, sorry -- the plain language of the authorization fooled us. Mr. Reid, Biden, et. al. should have informed us what it 'really' meant."
From Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt" -- it so perfectly describes President Lemon's administration to a tee:
As we await Congress's decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign-policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no "international community" ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess. We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, "smart power." (These people can't even label a foreign-policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.) They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn't see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs. No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough.
Read the rest of this spot-on gem here.
Well, what else would you expect from the wisher of death upon Republicans? In this ... predictable post, Delaware Dunce blames George W. Bush for the current administration's inability to intervene in Syria, and notes that if Al Gore had been allowed to serve as president (since he "really" won the 2000 election), Bush/Iraq fatigue wouldn't even be manifested now, and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now.
*Sigh* Via Big Hollywood:
In the film there’s a debate among Starfleet personnel over how best to extract an enemy in a distant part of the galaxy — and whether that enemy should be subjected to due process.
The British actor (the film's villain, Benedict Cumberbatch) says: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era.”
Hmm. Given that I recall reading somewhere that the Federation's own "secret police," Section 31*, is mentioned in this sequel, you can probably bet there will be connections made to the CIA, Gitmo, and anything else from 2001-2008. Which is fine, of course; however, you can bet virtually none of that will be displayed positively.
This comment nails it regarding such "brave" commentary:
How does it take a backbone to criticize Bush and Cheney? Hollywood's been doing that for ten years. If everyone around you is doing that, it requires no backbone to join in, especially ten years after the fact.
Standing up for Bush and Cheney's interventionist policies would show actual backbone.
Not that I agree that Bush's foreign policy was right-headed, but this guy's point is spot-on. Hollywood ain't brave in regurgitating this stuff; it'd have a lot more cojones if it did something like make a direct connection between the Klingons and radical Muslims.
Who knows -- maybe we'll be lucky and Into Darkness WILL explore the notion that a constitution is not a suicide pact. Ultimate survival will always take precedence over playing by the rules, whether we like it or not. And let no one fool you -- anyone who says differently is blowing smoke.
*Section 31 debuted in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Inquisition." According to its Wikipedia entry, it "exists outside Starfleet Intelligence's influence," and its "authority stems from a provision of the Starfleet charter—Article 14, Section 31, from which its name is derived—that makes allowances for 'bending the rules' during times of extraordinary threats."
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
Reopen the White House to tourists - The Washington Post: "THE DECISION to drop White House tours always had a whiff of what’s known as Washington Monument syndrome. The ham-handed tactic is employed when government is faced with budget cuts and officials go after the services that are most visible and appreciated by the public. It’s a kind of bureaucratic hostage-taking, so the pushback that the Obama administration has encountered is a proper comeuppance."
Even the Post isn't having any of this nonsense. I cannot fathom how tone deaf the man is. Who is advising him? Is he listening to anyone at all? If so, how has that person not been fired 17 times over by now? If he is ignoring advice and doing this on his own we're even worse off.
The only upside is that the further he pushes himself out on this limb the harder the "correction" is going to be in the other direction. Carter gave us Reagan and I have no idea who's going to follow Obama but I suspect he'll be either a fire and brimstone Rick Santorum style SocialCon (Dear God please no) or a Ron Paul type libertarian (if only).
Via Robot 6: Brazilian pop artist Butcher Billy has created a "real life" Legion of Supervillains, and guess who made the list alongside such notorious figures as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Osama bin Laden? Yep, George W. Bush.
Article author Mark Kardwell [rightly] questions the inclusion of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg too ("[He] isn’t exactly a genocidal tyrant"), yet -- nary a word about our last president. Say it with me: BOOOR-INGGG.
Commenter Brian's sarcasm nails it: "Painting George Bush Jr as villain. That’s edgy and inventive :-p"
... I actually agree with Boss Obama's drone strikes against al Qaeda (and whatever other radical Islamist terror groups), even if they include American citizens. Why should it matter what your current citizenship is if you freely decide to join a bunch of illegal combatants in order to do violence to innocent people? It shouldn't, in my opinion (and in that of many others, too).
The issue is the brazen, unadulterated hypocrisy of the mainstream media and the Left as a whole on this matter. When the previous administration went to great lengths to justify how they waged the war on radical Islamists, it was pilloried on a daily basis by the MSM, and "progressives" staged "peace" marches and complained hourly about human rights abuses.
Now, we see this: New York Times and Washington Post Knew About Secret Drone Base In Saudi Arabia and Agreed Not to Report It. And this. And this -- the NYT puts the story on page eleven. And this. The liberal Kirsten Powers nails it: "They're clearly hypocrites. They clearly don't really care about human rights. They only care if it helps them politically."
Meanwhile, locally, our Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers -- who bitched and moaned daily when George W. Bush was offering legal opinions much less controversial than Boss Obama's -- is now concentrating on the great import of stuff like Chris Christie's weight, Karl Rove and GOP infighting, and Fox News ditching Dick Morris.
Here’s what [MSNBC's Touré] said about drone strikes back on December 20th, 2012, seven weeks ago:
Touré insisted that torture, and drone warfare, are not making America safer. Nor, he said, do those tactics provide defense officials with actionable intelligence. “It wrecks the soul of America,” Touré said.
Drone strikes aren’t making us safer. They wreck the soul of America.
Now that we’ve learned that the Obama administration is calling the killing of American citizens without due process “legal, ethical, and wise,” Toure has changed his tune.
TOURE NEBLETT: We’re at war with al Qaeda right now, and if you join al Qaeda, you lose the right to be an American. You lose the right to due process. You declare yourself an enemy of this nation, and you are committing treason. And I don’t see why we should expand American rights to people who want to kill Americans, who are working to kill Americans, who are committing treason. This is not criticizing the United States. This is going to war against the United States.
That is what you call “hackery.”
And, as RB at The Right Sphere notes, "I really like the part where Toure talks about expanding American rights to people who want to kill Americans. Because that’s what HE and his ilk wanted to do with the people we captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
When George W. Bush was president, I might add.
We might also note the insanely ridiculous hypocrisy of another bunch of moonbats on this matter, too. Merely check out idiot "El Somnambulo's" gravatar. Yep, still has it; if he changed it to Boss Obama, he'd not only be dubbed a racist, he'd be booted off that blog, without a doubt.
RELATED: Imagine the [mostly faux] outrage of the LGOMB if George Bush had ordered the drone strike which killed this 16 year-old American citizen. But since a Nobel "Peace" Prize winner has done it, it's all good! So, let's just keep talking about gun control, paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and green energy, all the while the economy continues to tank, and Obama makes George W. Bush look like Dennis Kucinich in comparison.
... well, you know well by now: Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.
Just remember, though: Waterboarding is still 100 times worse. Because it happened under George Bush. Or something.
Via Doug Ross@Journal:
1) Virtually every retailer, restaurant and grocery store south of 38th street is CLOSED. This is in an area covering 8 square miles. I only observed a handful of bodegas in Soho and the East Village, along with Ben’s Pizza on W3rd and MacDougal serving customers. Whole Foods Union Square had a sign reading “because there is no electricity, we cannot open.” There is no food, other than what you have in your refrigerator.
2) To that point, there are close to 400,000 people living below 38th street without power. The mayor earlier said it could be 3 days without power; some Con Ed guys I spoke with in the East Village think it could be longer. Nobody knows.
3) No working traffic lights in this region (drivers are generally being cautious and appropriately yielding to pedestrians). Apartment stairwells are pitch black. High rises have no elevator access...
5) There is no running water or flushing toilets for people living in the Jacob Riis Houses and surrounding NYCHA buildings on the Lower East Side. In my estimate, this is roughly 20,000 people. One family I spoke with is packing their bags and moving to Brooklyn until services are restored. But it did not appear that all residents were evacuating, even as their toilets did not flush.
6) I did not witness a single Red Cross Truck or FEMA Vehicle or in lower Manhattan. Recall the assistance these agencies provided after 9/11 - this is NOT HAPPENING. There are bound to be hundreds of elderly people, rich and poor, who live on the upper floors of buildings with elevators that are now disabled. IF POWER IS NOT RESTORED, THIS WILL MOVE FROM BEING AN ECONOMIC DISASTER TO A HUMANITARIAN DISASTER.
So how did it go? We had lots of wind and rain but that's about it. Some water in the basement but nothing damaged. Sound off in the comments.
Woody Harrelson, Martin Sheen, and Ed Asner are among those signed on to the project.
No word yet on whether trust funder Jason "Reasonable People Can Disagree About Whether or not George Bush Had Prior Knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers will help bankroll the film.
Boss Obama quickly hired Truther Van Jones to his staff ... and remained on staff until [the conservative] media continued to point the ugly truth (pardon the pun) out. Most recently, MSNBC hired Truther Touré as part of its latest pundit show. Locally, Jason "Trust Fund" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers once wrote
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" [sic] type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Now, in Missouri, a prominent Democrat -- and 9/11 Truther -- is running for statewide office:
MD Rabbi Alam is an Obama campaign ally and Missouri-based Democratic activist who chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), a Democratic National Committee-sponsored organization that liaises with Asian minorities.
Alam, who was born in Bangladesh, served as a “satellite campaign manager” for then-candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 elections, and has since been invited to the White House.
Alam has speculated about Jewish involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks and participated in an event with a Muslim cleric who has accused Israel of terrorism and alleged that the U.S. invented the HIV disease.
“Why [was] 9/11 was a official holidy [sic] for all jewish [sic] people worked in the the [sic] WTC?” Alam asked in an Internet discussion titled, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy??”
Alam went on to tout the 9/11 Truther film Loose Change 9/11, and challenged readers to “tell me how many of the Jewish people died on the 9/11 tragedy?”
Asked in an interview Monday about his provocative views, Alam stood by his controversial writings, admitting that he has been “waiting to discuss it with somebody.”
“My question was, ‘What’s the reason not a single Jew was killed on that day,’” Alam said, maintaining that his inquiries are based on facts, rather than a bias against Jewish people. “Was there a single Jew killed on that day?”
For what it's worth, the State Dept. estimates that between 200-400 Jews died in the 9/11 attacks.
Don't politicians and pundits who even raise (not agree with) the issue of Obama's birthplace get roundly -- and quickly -- panned? Are there any Birthers with their own show (or routinely featured) on Fox News?
The Telegraph (UK) notes that President Obama made an "uncharacteristic" gaffe the other day by calling the Falklands Islands -- known as the Malvinas in Argentina -- the "Maldives." And it did so by pointing out ... that George W. Bush was more prone to such blunders:
Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error, more akin to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, by referring to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives.
While President George W. Bush certainly made his fair share of gaffes, one can certainly wonder if the former chief exec was indeed more apt to make such errors, or whether it was the media -- in this case the foreign press -- that highlighted them more often than it does those of our current president. For example, take Oliver Burkeman's "homage" to Mr. Bush in the [UK] Guardian just prior to the former president's departure from the White House in 2009: "The gaffes, the gibberish, the gurning. Admit it: there's a part of him you're going to miss" he writes. He then includes the memorable moment of Mr. Bush walking into a locked door while in China, followed by just about every memorable verbal/grammar gaffe of his presidency.
The [UK] Daily Mail giggled at the former president mixing up Austria with Australia, while the aforementioned BBC certainly had fun with the former president's blunders with British royalty. Ironically, our current president thought that Austrian was an actual language, and he's had his own share of gaffes with regards to the British and their royalty.
So, are such blunders, verbal and otherwise, "uncharacteristic" of President Obama? Let's take a look at some classics:
Newsbusters forum member Blonde has a handy-dandy reference guide for many other such goofs by our current chief exec.
The question to the UK Telegraph is: Was your sub-headline an actual fact -- or a blatant editorial opinion?
(Cross-posted at Newsbusters.)
Who knew? CNN Money says "Rising gas prices aren't as bad as you think."
In 1981, when oil prices spiked following the Iranian Revolution, gasoline represented nearly 5% of the nation's spending, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In 2011, only 3.7% of spending went to gas, even though prices averaged at their highest level ever that year.
In addition to spending less, we're driving more than ever -- 90% more than compared to the early '80s, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
Whoa! So all's wine and roses! But hey -- then there's this much-belated defense of, of all things, high gas prices under President George W. Bush:
For example, in 2008 gas prices were all over the news when they hit their all time high. But in 2010 when prices fell people barely mentioned them. Yet spending on gas totaled only $12 more per week in 2008 than in 2010, according to numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That $12 per week is roughly the same amount that BLS figures show people spent on "pets, toys, hobbies and playground equipment."
Where was this defense when Bush needed it, eh? Oh, right -- CNN Money was running stories like this. And, we got all this. Ah well, this sort of media defense of Obama certainly isn't new -- just over one year ago we saw very similar headlines going to bat for The Messiah.
Gotta love our current administration. It's NEVER to blame ... for ANYTHING:
After spending months touting the Obama administration's decision to loan $535 million to the California solar energy upstart Solyndra, top officials took a new tack Wednesday while testifying before Congress about the company's abrupt shut-down and bankruptcy: the loan, they said, was actually the Bush administration's idea. The Energy Department's top lending officer told Congress that the Solyndra loan application was not only filed during President Bush's term, but it surged towards completion before Obama took office in January 2009.
"By the time the Obama administration took office in late January 2009, the loan programs' staff had already established a goal of, and timeline for, issuing the company a conditional loan guarantee commitment in March 2009," said Jonathan Silver, who heads the Energy loan program. (Link)
There's just one small problem with this: Bush and co. refused the loan.
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.
Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011. (Link)
And waddya know? It's September, 2011.
Presidential vacations are a kind of on-the-job benefit that is rarely scrutinized in the best of economic times.
But these are troubling times of high unemployment, a seesawing stock market and faraway wars and skirmishes that strain the United States' defense resources.
As a result, where, how and when Barack Obama and the first family take time off has generated waves of criticism that borders on the irrational.
Comparisons of when and where Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush spent their days off have sent Internet alarmists into overdrive. At times it seems every minute the Obamas have spent away from the White House is fodder for some sort of conspiracy theory.
U.S. presidents are never off the job.
I don't think they did, if my prodigious Googling was accurate. Such an editorial is expected now, though -- since a liberal Democrat is in the White House.
But consider how many other MSM outlets felt about GW Bush's vacations, usually at his Texas ranch. Here's a sampling:
What liberal media?
The bloated Michael Moore wants President Obama to arrest the head of Standard & Poor’s:
Liberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.
On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor’s — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.
“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008 & now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.
Mr. Moore went on to note that the “owners of S&P are old Bush family friends,” continuing a theme he has developed through several films about capitalism as essentially a crony system for the rich and Wall Street, especially the Bush family.
I knew it! This, too, is George W. Bush's fault!!
Remember -- the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) head honcho Jason Scott wrote this back in 2006:
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Reasonable people. REASONABLE PEOPLE.
Just keep this little nugget in mind ANY time "Trust Fund" Scott or any of his moonbat minions refer to other idiots (like Birthers) as brain dead buffoons (or any other such colorful term) ... or even mock a real reasonable disagreement.
"Bin Laden unarmed when shot" is the [AP] headline in today's News Journal.
Is there any doubt that the usual suspects would be screaming and howling about "shooting someone in cold blood" that presented "no threat" if George W. Bush was still president? Of course not. I guarantee you we'd see/read some or all of the following:
'Ya just gotta love Keith Olbermann back in 2009 covering Seymour Hersh's claim that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney utilized a "secret assassination ring" ... which just happens to be the same crew that recently took out Osama bin Laden:
Mr. Hersh is making the revelations at a forum in Minnesota two nights ago. The topic: America’s constitutional crisis. Hersh saying of Mr. Cheney and his inner circle, quote, "They ran a government within the government." Adding, "Eight or nine neoconservatives took over our country." (Link.) (Video at link, too.)
What's Olbermann's take on this "assassination ring" operating now ... and taking out Osama? Congratulations.
Commenter "writer59" (via the Hersh link above) perhaps says it best:
Which is why no one watches or takes these MSNBC shows seriously. They are a joke. Bush---drones, Patriot Act, troop surges, Gitmo, rendition--all BAD! Onscreen countdown of lives lost, constant battering of Bush's character, Code Pink protests, Cindy Sheehan camped out and interviewed endlessly. Obama--drones, Patriot Act, troop surges, Gitmo, rendition--GOOD! He's a hero! No more mention of how many lives lost, no more Code Pink protests, no more Cindy Sheehan interviews.
Elsewhere, giddy "progressives" are anxious to claim that, not only does President Obama deserve all of the credit for nabbing bin Laden, but that so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques weren't even necessary (check the comments) to gather vital intel. Despite the fact that this flies in the face of what numerous past administration officials have claimed, the story of the current anti-terror victory isn't even clear yet.
Even if the current -- and yes, biggest -- nugget of info, the whereabouts of bin Laden, was gathered via more traditional interrogation methods, this doesn't automatically mean that coercive (or "enhanced") methods weren't instrumental in leading up to that point, nor that they weren't vital in getting other vital info, nor (and especially) that it's ineffective period.
This debate will rage on, as it did here with my friend Steve Newton formerly of the blog DE Libertarian. Keep in mind here, the blog title of another former DE blogger, Mike Matthews: "Down With Absolutes."
UPDATE: Uh oh, "progressives": incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "acknowledges (to NBC) information from waterboarded detainees was used to help plan mission at bin Laden's compound."
UPDATE 2: NBC story on the above.
you guessed it -- George W. Bush:
“One-person shifts are unsafe. Period,” Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said in a statement Thursday. He said the union has long been concerned about single controller shifts, citing a 2006 air crash in Lexington, Ky., in which a Comair regional airliner attempted a takeoff at night from the wrong runway. A single air traffic controller was on duty in the airport tower at the time.
“The administration inherited an unsafe policy of staffing to budget instead of putting safety first,” Rinaldi said. “We fully support the administration’s aggressive actions to change this policy.” (Link.)
Naturally, two-plus years was somehow insufficient to rectify this "inherited policy."
if only we elect Obama. Right. Well, no.
... and why Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq were stupid too.
Here's Salon.com's execrable Joan Walsh:
Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow. (Link.)
Got that? Criticism of George W. Bush's sojourn into Iraq was "coherent," but criticism of Barack Obama's adventure into Libya is merely "trashing the president."
Let's put it this way, Joan: You are an incoherent elitist POS.
The LGOMB (that's "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers") grind their collective teeth and tell us that "Libya is not Iraq."
Not much of a surprise from Philly.com:
Amazingly, many Americans continue to think Obama wasn't born in this country and is a Muslim. Perhaps they also believe in leprechauns.
But a survey last year also found that nearly one in five Americans (18 percent) think Obama is a Muslim. A separate survey last month found 51 percent of likely Republican primary voters believe Obama wasn't born in the United States.
That, as the Irish say, is a bunch of blarney.
While I agree with the sentiment, where was this editorial board back in 2007 when it was noted that 35% of Democrats believe that George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks (and 26% say they "aren't sure")?
Exactly -- nowhere to be found. Doesn't. Fit. The. Narrative.
Far-left Prof. James Loewen connects slavery to ... extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts:
[T]wo ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Loewen is perhaps best known for his book Lies My Teacher Told Me. (You can just imagine the "lies" he discusses.) Lesser known is what Loewen believes an "appropriate" (i.e. "not culturally biased") SAT question for African-Americans would be:
Saturday Ajax got an LD:
a) He had smoked too much grass
b) He tripped out on drugs
c) He brought her to his apartment
d) He showed it off to his fox
e) He became wised up
Maybe Loewen's next column will discuss how his sample SAT question is connected to slavery. Nah, doubtful. Remember -- "progressives" such as Loewen believe African-Americans need their enlightened assistance to make it in this "oppressive" United States.
You've probably noticed that those prices at the pump have risen considerably over the last month or so. But don't worry! It's not that big a deal! Well, according to Yahoo! Finance's Daniel Gross, that is. Why? Well, Americans are consuming less gas per capita than a few years ago, cars are more fuel efficient, and people are just plain getting weary of more and more traffic (and, hence, are driving less):
There's also evidence that Americans' long-running love affair with the road is beginning to wane a bit. Driving is less fun when you're always stuck in traffic. These statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation show the number of miles driven by buses, trucks, and cars from 1957 to 2008. From 1990 to 2000, total miles driven rose from 2.17 trillion to 2.75 trillion, up about 26 percent. But between 2000 and 2008, total mileage rose less than seven percent, from 2.75 trillion to 2.94 trillion. Miles driven fell in 2008.
Oh ho! So, total miles driven between 2000-2008 dropped substantially when compared to the previous decade. I seem to recall a guy named George W. Bush being in the White House then, and don't recall any such pronouncements of "Relax!" from people like Gross. (Although Gross actually debunked conspiracy theories that G.W. Bush manipulated energy prices to coincide with elections, I wonder if he wrote the headline of this Slate article of his ... especially since it isn't until the very last line of the column that he definitively exonerates the administration.) Gross's declaration isn't stand-alone. WRAL.com in North Carolina recently headlined "Economist: Rising gas prices 'good sign.'"
NC State economist Mike Walden sees a silver lining in higher gas prices, saying it means the US economy has regained its footing and is getting back up to speed. "Gas prices going up is actually a good sign," Walden said. "$3 is normal. When we were down in the $2 (range), that was abnormal due to the recession. "I don't see anything diabolical, mysterious or underhanded here," he continued. "I think it's just a sign that the worldwide economy is better now than it has been over the last three years."
Contrast that to some of these WRAL.com headlines from the previous administration:
These are just further examples of what Newsbusters' Julia A. Seymour wrote about back on December 30th. If you haven't yet read her excellent article, be sure to check out how the MSM portrayed increases in gas prices during 2004-2008.
(Cross-posted at Newsbusters.)
WRAL.com in North Carolina: Economist: Rising gas prices 'good sign.'
NC State economist Mike Walden sees a silver lining in higher gas prices, saying it means the US economy has regained its footing and is getting back up to speed.
"Gas prices going up is actually a good sign," Walden said. "$3 is normal. When we were down in the $2 (range), that was abnormal due to the recession.
"I don't see anything diabolical, mysterious or underhanded here," he continued. "I think it's just a sign that the worldwide economy is better now than it has been over the last three years."
What a positive spin on skyrocketing gas costs, eh?
Flashback to June 2007: Poll: Oil Companies Blamed for Gas Prices.
According to Public Policy Polling results released Tuesday, 43 percent of respondents feel big oil companies are driving up gas prices to boost their profits. Another 28 percent feel President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq are driving up the cost at the pump.
Flashback to September 2008: Attorney general to probe gas prices; N.C. average tops $4.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said the state will take the first step in investigating claims of price gouging by sending subpoenas to certain gas stations Monday. Companies face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the price-gouging law.
Flashback to February 2006: Political Parties Divided On Gas Price Solution.
Democrats applaud Gov. Mike Easley's letter to President George W. Bush calling for an investigation of gas company profits. Republicans say Easley is shifting the blame from Democratic state lawmakers.
Flashback to August 2008: High gas prices take toll on charity workers.
Flashback to October 2008: N.C. gas prices sit high above national average.
Flashback to May 2009: Gas prices on the rise again.
Most experts have said it is likely that the cost of gasoline will climb a little higher for the summer. They said it is difficult to gauge how much but most don't expect it to be as high as last summer.
The reason for the increase, Denise McCourt with the American Petroleum Institute, said is basic economics.
"It's supply and demand that drives this market place," she said. "It's the global mindset about what's going on out there."
Oh, right! In May 2009 there was a new guy in the White House! That's why we "don't expect [gas prices] to be as high as last summer," and the increase is suddenly "basic economics."
Scratch that last one ... !
Why, who else? George W. Bush. Well, specifically, "Bush's Brain" Karl Rove.
GEORGE W. BUSH:
There's NOTHING for which
he can't be blamed!
A site I frequent -- Common Sense Political Thought -- gets quite a few regular commenters from both sides of the political spectrum. In one recent thread, one regular lefty opined on the demise of America as he sees it:
We’re not the country we used to be. We turned our backs on our own values for the love of our own abject fear. We ignore the very real growing fascism within our borders, while accusing efforts at improvement of being fascist.
We revere the generation that fought WWII while being completely incapable of continuing their work at national improvement. We can’t even maintain the 60-year-old infrastructure they built. Because it’s too expensive. Self-destructive greed from the bottom up.
Out of a desire for national machismo, we’ve ruined the good name of our country all over the world for the privilege of swinging our Florida in everyone’s face. We export corruption to friendly and defenseless countries. We’ve lost control of our foreign intelligence arm, as well as our internal police forces.
We loudly boast of our number one status while rapidly dropping on the list of every desirable metric.
We still have the plan for a great country as the core of our law, but we keep ignoring it, while touting its greatness. We refuse to understand the words on the page, which gets easier year after year, because we’ve let our schools go to shit. We’re in the process of re-instituting slavery, which only requires assigning it another name, or no name at all.
We are testing the limits of success of propaganda and fear-based politics.
Virtues are derided.
This post will be seen as an attack on America.
There will be actual violence, on a national scale. The wealthiest will retire to other countries. The remainder will have to rebuild, and we may envy Haiti their standard of living. It’s only a matter of time.
"We turned our backs on our own values for the love of our own abject fear"? What exactly does this mean? But if I had a nickel for every time some "progressive" cried "fascism" due to the efforts in the GWOT (General War on Terror) let alone anything suggested by conservatives/Republicans, I'd be a rich man right now. And here, again, we see how utterly incapable "progressives" are at even considering fundamental political and philosophical differences with conservatives. "Efforts at improvement" are accused of being "fascist?" Not exactly; more likely they're deemed "socialist" (although in their ultimate forms there's actually little difference anyway). Nevertheless, what conservatives take issue with are not "efforts at improvement" but who exactly should make the improvement. Frankly, if the federal government backed off one-third of what it's intertwined in at present, we'd be much better off.
Next, a false premise. Why should the federal government maintain infrastructure anyway? Why shouldn't that be a state/local responsibility? And "greed from the bottom up?" How so? Here's is one of many differences between "progressives" and conservatives on this: "Progressives" think you're "greedy" and "stingy" if you want to keep more of your hard-earned money. After all, as noted above, it's needed for "good public works." On the other hand, conservatives recognize that government has squandered so much of your tax money already, and will merely squander more if they get it. It's not your fault that bridges may be in disrepair; it's the idiots in government who waste our money on things other than what it should be spent on! Period. Groups like the Tea Party in part were generated by the "had it up to here" feeling myriad folks had pent for years.
Following, what does our little progressive mean by his next quip? Does he mean that, because we allowed our Constitution to work in 2000 when George W. Bush battled Al Gore for the presidency, we're ... "corrupt?" How deluded does a "progressive" have to be to think this "ruined" the name of our country by how that ultimately played out? And which "friendly and defenseless countries" have we exported corruption to? Even with "progressives'" holy grail -- Iraq -- that supposition cannot be made even remotely credibly. As bad as the situation may seem since the US invasion, any semblance of democracy is inherently less corrupt than an authoritarian dictatorship. Not to mention that it puts in place the structures for further improvement. (And I state the above as a libertarian-conservative who was AGAINST the invasion of Iraq.) In Afghanistan, the same principle applies. "Oh, gosh -- since the US invaded the heroin trade has picked up." Yeah, but in the meantime, the Taliban and al Qaeda aren't terrorizing the living hell out of the populace, murdering anyone who so much as looks the wrong way at them. Sorry, but yes -- freedom can have a "down" side. People can take advantage of freedom, especially newly founded freedom, in negative ways.
Regarding the next point, the US certainly may be dropping in certain metrics, but it's not "rapidly" nor is it dire.
In response to the next point, by "ignoring the law" do we mean things like stretching the Commerce Clause beyond any recognition? Do we mean like hiring political appointees who haven't paid their taxes, yet you and I face killer fines and liens? Do we mean like letting politicians get a slap on the wrist while Joe Six-Pack would be thrown in jail? Do we mean like going to war without declaring such?
And who is "letting the schools go to sh**?" Are we actually claiming there's a lack of funds for schools? Why do countries with worse educational infrastructures beat us in various measures, then? Might there actually be something other than mere money involved in the decline of American education? The rest of that paragraph is just neo-Marxian drivel.
Following, whose virtues are derided? Why do "progressives" see one as virtuous only if they agree (or, voice no disagreement) to have more wealth confiscated from him/her so that the "virtuous" federal government can "do more" with it? "Progressives" also feel they are more "virtuous" because they want to grant things like habeas corpus to people like radical Islamic terrorists who have no compunctions about killing innocent women and children. Yet, somehow, it is not virtuous to clearly state who our country's enemies are, all the while stating that things like childhood obesity is a "national security risk."
Lastly, the notion that the US will envy Haiti is simply beyond reason. The US does not riot like European countries do merely because college tuition goes up, or because politicians want to hike the retirement age for benefits. If there's going to violence in the streets here, it will more likely be because our politicians refused to cut profligate spending, refused to get the federal government off the average person's back (and wallet), and continued to allow the unelected court system to make laws instead of interpret them.
Among other things.
A founding member of an organization run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero, claims that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that Muslims have been made scapegoats, The Post has learned.
Faiz Khan -- who has preached at least twice at the former Burlington Coat Factory building, the site of the proposed mosque -- was for years Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims, which is dedicated to promoting a better understanding of Islam.
Khan also serves on the advisory board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth and is a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, known as MUJCA.
On MUJCA's Web site, Khan wrote that "the inescapable fact [is] that 9/11 was an inside job."
"The prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as 'militant Islam,' although the phenomenon known as 'militant Islamic networks' may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role -- perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat," he wrote in documents uncovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Khan was listed as one of three directors of the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims in its 1997 incorporation papers, when it went by the name of the American Sufi Muslim Association.
But just remember -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a "moderate" and the proposed community center/mosque is to be a "monument to peace."
35% of Democrats think George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks (61% say he knew in advance or "aren't sure"). Thus, these nimrods have one big thing in common with aging dictator Fidel Castro:
FORMER Cuban president Fidel Castro said Osama bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA and was summoned up whenever George W. Bush needed to scare the world.
"Any time Bush would stir up fear and make a big speech, bin Laden would appear threatening people with a story about what he was going to do," Castro told Sky News.
"Bush never lacked for bin Laden's support. He was a subordinate."
... and now is resigned to saying "YOU deal with this, you high and mighty elitists."
A response to this Philly Inquirer cartoon.
... a big, fat middle finger:
There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.
Author Byron York quotes libs Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson and Peter Beinart. As for the former president, he "has declined to comment on the mosque affair."
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this silence is twisted into the whole mosque affair somehow being W's fault.
Via Rhymes With Right:
Afghanistan was dubbed ‘Obama’s War’ last night after it was revealed that as many American soldiers have died in the conflict during his presidency as during George Bush’s entire time in office.
According to the latest death tally, 575 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the 20 months since Barack Obama took office in January last year.
That is the same number of fatalities the U.S. military suffered under Mr Bush, who launched the Afghan invasion nine years ago in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
With his White House honeymoon well and truly over, Mr Obama is no longer able to blame his country’s travails on the previous administration. (Source.)
As RWR notes, "this statistic is neither an indictment nor an endorsement of Obama's policies in Afghanistan or Iraq." It's a statement about pathetically biased our MSM is.
Legendary writer Frank Miller ("300") once had an idea: Have Batman go after al Qaeda in a story called "Holy Terror, Batman." But Batman's company, DC, was "squeamish" about having one of their marquee characters fighting terrorists. Terrorists! (Of course, it was no big deal to have one of their radical-lefty super groups, the Authority, take over the United States government!)
Over four years later (four!) the project has been nixed. Well, sort of. As Avi Green notes,
Earlier this week, sitting over coffee at the U.S. Grant Hotel in San Diego, Miller said the elusive project is finally close to completion but that the name and central character have changed and that DC Comics won't be the publisher. Miller frames all of this as a decision that was driven by the work itself and not dictated by a DC leadership that, according to insiders, has long been leery of the politically charged concept.
"It's almost done; I should be finished within a month," Miller said. "It's no longer a DC book. I decided partway through it that it was not a Batman story. The hero is much closer to 'Dirty Harry' than Batman. It's a new hero that I've made up that fights Al Qaeda."
Like Avi, I really don't buy that this was Miller's decision. Why replace one of entertainment's most popular characters -- Batman -- with a no-name vigilante, not to mention not publish it via one entertainment's largest outlets -- DC? It doesn't make any sense.
But that's the world we live in today, folks. Although Miller rightly had pointed out that "Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for," and "It just seems silly to chase around the Riddler when you've got Al Qaeda out there," politically correct sensibilities among our cultural Ruling Class take the opposite view. Batman going after al Qaeda may upset ... someone, perhaps some Muslims who'll view it as yet another Western imperialist adventure. Or, other Ruling Class "progressives" who "know" that al Qaeda's anger is justified because of past actions by the United States. (And this is why publications like The Authority are perfectly acceptable, too.)
Singer Jimmy Buffett is just another mad Gulf Coast native when it comes to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but with an exception: He's got millions of fans and a way to help lift spirits over the seemingly endless crisis.
Buffett and his Coral Reefer Band will play Sunday on the beach in Gulf Shores, Ala., which has been sporadically hit by oil for weeks. The show already has been postponed once because of Hurricane Alex, and Buffet is hoping bad weather lurking in the Gulf doesn't create problems this weekend.
Buffett, a supporter of President Barack Obama, said the roots of the spill lie with the administration of former President George Bush, which was often criticized for being too cozy with the petroleum industry.
"To me it was more about eight years of bad policy before (Obama) got there that let this happen. It was Dracula running the blood bank in terms of oil and leases," he said. "I think that has more to do with it than how the president reacted to it."
That's what Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler told the Associated Press as to why charges were dropped against the New Black Panthers' voter intimidation case.
Wow. Maybe this video doesn't count as "fact?" A former DOJ attorney has stated that the DOJ dropped the case for racial reasons; can you imagine the reaction if a GOP-run DOJ dropped a similar case -- where members of the KKK were stationed outside a polling place in, say, Mississippi?
And as for "voter intimidation," does anyone else recall how the Left defined "intimidation" as the police having set up a driver checkpoint within a few miles of some polling places (among other hysterical instances) in Florida on election night 2000 ... and how that was some sinister GOP plot to give the state to G.W. Bush?
Yeah -- but two Black Panthers right in front of a polling place brandishing night sticks is voter intimidation "not supported by the facts or by the law."
So says CNN's Fareed Zakaria:
Why has Turkey become a "troublemaker?" According to Zakaria, first the Europeans are in part to blame for not admitting Turkey into the European Union, even though the European Union is suffering by allowing a weak Greece admission in the past.
"Having begged for membership in European Union, having fulfilled every condition placed on it by Brussels, Turkey has been repeatedly rebuffed and humiliated by Europe so now the Turks have seem to have decided to go their own way," Zakaria said.
"The United States for its part did not handle Turkish relations well, especially under the previous administration," Zakaria said. "The Bush team treated Turkey with the usual mixture of arrogance and high-handedness and then was outraged when the Turkish parliament refused to go along with its war plans in Iraq. Then they repeatedly snubbed Turkey over the next few years."
GEORGE W. BUSH:
There's NOTHING for which
he can't be blamed!
On Tuesday's CBS Evening News, with the help of the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, Sharyl Attkisson managed to blame news, that Al and Tipper Gore are separating, on how they never got over being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote in 2000. If only Bush hadn't taken it from them.
Attkisson recalled “it's been ten years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention. That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for President but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”