Noel Sheppard Cheers Republicans Who Put Politics Before Country Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard used an Aug. 22 NewsBusters post to express his annoyance that Howard Fineman said that Republicans are refusing to praise President Obama for the imminent ouster of Moammar Gadhafi from Libya, adding, "If Barack Obama came out and said, 'You know, I really love apple pie,' they would say, 'Apple pie is a socialist plot'”:
As I've said for years, it takes a tremendous number of rationalizations to be a liberal these days.
What is also quite striking about today's left-leaning political analysts is how they conveniently feign total ignorance of politics when the situation warrants.
There's an election next year that the Republicans would like to win. It is therefore not in their best interest to say nice things about the president they're trying to defeat.
Surely someone that has covered national politics since 1978 is not only aware of this, but also has experienced it throughout his career.
Apart from the months immediately following 9/11, Democrats hardly ever had anything nice to say about George W. Bush. That's called politics.
Unfortunately, folks like Fineman lose all knowledge of how this game works whenever there's a Democrat in the White House.
At that point, Republicans are considered rude if they don't fawn and gush over him like members of the media do.
Sorry to disappoint you, Howard.
So it's OK for Republicans to put politics before country, Noel? All righty, then.
NewsBusters Finds A Tax It Wants To Raise Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters, normally advocates of tax cuts, has found a tax it wants to raise.
In an Aug. 22 post, Tom Blumer rants at an Associated Press article that he claims is "a long-winded, chidish taunt about the supposed hypocrisy of anyone who would like to see" elimination of the payroll tax cut. Blumer takes particular offense at the idea that "Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different 'temporary' tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase."
Blumer huffs that "hammer-and-tong" is "violent-appearing imagery," further complaining that "The evidence that this year's cut did much of anything to "help the economy and create jobs" is sparse indeed, given that the latest data on economic growth show an average rate of less than 1% annualized during the first six months of 2011." He then defends the Bush tax cuts:
First of all, the tax cuts took place in 2001 and 2003; the latter cut, which reduced across-the-board income tax rates as well as the rates on capital gains and dividend distributions, were far more important in affecting business behavior and improving the economy. As seen here, after the 2003 tax changes were passed, Treasury receipts increased by 44% from $1.78 trillion in fiscal 2003 to $2.57 trillion in fiscal 2007. Despite overindulgent spending by Congress during that time, the deficit in fiscal 2007 came in at $162 billion, which in Obamaland isn't that much different from the deficit in a typical month.
But Blumer showed only correlation, not causation, and he did not explain why the payroll tax cut did not have thet same effect he claims the Bush tax cuts did.
Blumer also repeats a right-wing fallacy:
Several other AP writers in the past 2-3 months have pointed out that the referenced $1,000 has been gobbled up by increases in gas prices, the responsibility for which largely resides in the administration's refusal to explore and drill for oil (which, if done aggressively enough, would certainly bring down the worldwide barrel price and prices at the gas pump).
In fact, experts agree that even an aggressive expansion of oil production in the U.S. would have little effect on global oil prices.
Homosexual political activists are pushing hard for the cultural and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, the adoption of hate-crimes legislation and open homosexual activity in the U.S. armed forces.
Opposition to this agenda typically comes from practicing and observant Christians and Jews who recognize the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior is sinful and that there are grave real-life consequences to nations that condone it.
But I want you to notice who doesn't actively oppose this agenda in American society today – organized Muslim groups.
There is little question the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage will open the door to the legalization of polygamy. It's inevitable. After all, if it is now "discriminatory," as we're told, to prohibit two men or two women from getting married, clearly it is "discriminatory" to prohibit the marriage of one man and two or more women. There is simply no other rational way to view it.
Who benefits? Those who practice polygamy as part of their religion – Muslims.
I have to laugh at those proponents and apologists for same-sex marriage who suggest there is simply no demand for polygamy. Believe me, worldwide there is a huge demand for polygamy. One-third of the world practices it as a matter of course. There is far less demand, by comparison, for same-sex marriage.
What about hate-crimes legislation? Homosexual activists demand special class status in which they will be free of any dirty looks, offensive speech or criticism because of their lifestyle choices. You might expect organizations of observant Muslims to join with observant Christians and Jews to defend their rights to condemn what all their faiths believe to be sinful behavior. Not so. I have yet to see one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups active in the U.S. oppose the imposition of hate-crimes laws based on sexual proclivities.
I suggest to you it is because those Muslim Brotherhood front groups also intend to use similar hate-crimes laws to their advantage. In fact, they already are in many places – college campuses, government school districts, government offices and major corporations.
And what about opposition to the gutting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law? Where are the Muslim organizations on this one? Once again, they are AWOL. Peculiar, isn't it?
Not really. That's because, I believe, the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood tentacles in the U.S. recognize that, ultimately, the U.S. military is one of the last lines of defense of a nation in economic, political and cultural retreat. And they recognize that open homosexual activity within the military's ranks renders it less effective. In other words, it spells victory for the jihadists who ruled the world in the past and intend to rule it in the future.
So what explains the current brand of patty-cake politics between the Muslim Mafia and the Gay Mafia?
Money, moral relativism, naiveté and power.
But this is a short-term marriage of convenience, not a marriage made in heaven.
CNS' Starr Falsely Attributes Sex Ed Info to Government Website Topic: CNSNews.com
You might remember Penny Starr as the CNSNews.com reporter who tried to manufacture outrage over a gay-themed art exhibition at the Smithsonian last year. Now, she’s upset by something she found on the Internet:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is offering advice to parents and teens about sex education, including assurances that teens may “experiment” with homosexuality as part of “exploring their own sexuality,” and that masturbation should be of concern only “if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”
The information, located on a “Questions and Answers About Sex” link on the “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” portion of the HHS Web site, also describes children and infants as “sexual beings.”
Under the question “When Do Kids Start Becoming Curious About Sex?” the answer notes that infants have curiosity about their bodies.
“Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings,” the Q&A Web page says. “It's hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it's hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”
Starr suggests this purportedly offensive information originated from HHS; later, she writes that the “HHS Web site reassures teens and parents that having homosexual tendencies as a young person is ‘common’ as teens ‘sort through their emerging sexual feelings.’ ” In fact, both pages are located on a website called KidsHealth, which is operated by the Nemours Center for Children’s Health Media. The center is part of a foundation that is “dedicated to improving the health and spirit of children” and operates several children’s health facilities.
Further, the KidsHealth “Questions and Answers About Sex” article contains a note that it was reviewed by a pediatric endocrinologist, as well as two licensed social workers, and the sexual orientation page states that it was reviewed by a child psychologist who holds a doctorate. At no point does Starr cite any children’s health professional to rebut or contradict the statements being made.
On top of the professional review of those frank but accurate statements, the KidsHealth website features a long list of “educational partners” endorsing its “award-winning, doctor-review, family-friendly content.” On that list are dozens of children’s hospitals across the country, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and private health insurance companies.
In lieu of an actual expert, Starr brings in Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council to take potshots. Not only is Sprigg not a licensed children’s health professional (he’s an ordained Baptist minister), but he is employed by an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its rampant anti-gay rhetoric.
Starr paraphrases Sprigg as saying that “some of the information has no place on a federal government Web site.” So, in the end, this all seems to boil down to a demand that information about sexual health not be discussed by public health officials.
MRC Grinds Out Another Dubious Piece of 'Media Research' Topic: Media Research Center
As if designed to complement our recent report on its dubious "media research," the Media Research Center came out with a new study pushing more of said research. Rich Noyes declared:
Media Research Center analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from January 1 through July 31 and found 62 “conservative” labels for Republican candidates or those talked about as potential candidates. A check of the same broadcasts for the same time period in 2007 found a paltry three “liberal” labels for the Democrats running that year, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity.
As per usual, the MRC limited its scope to only the networks, making no effort to analyze cable news.
Noyes concludes by asserting that President Obama is "the most liberal President in American history," but he did not back up that claim or explain how he determined it to be so.
That's the kind of biased thinking that makes most people realize that the MRC's "media research" isn't about actual research.
It's not often you see anyone defending predatory payday lenders, but John Berlau does just that in an Aug. 12 Newsmax column.
Such a questionable defense is apparently the only way Berlau could find to attack Consumer Financial Protection Bureau nominee. Richard Cordray. Berlau declared Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general, to be a "paternalistic politico" whose "philosophy was ban first, ask questions later." The example of this supposed behavior Berlau cited was payday loans, which he eupemistically described as "small, short-term loans." Berlau -- a former writer for the now-defunct Moonie-owned magazine Insight who now heads the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Investors and Entrepeneurs -- then went into shill mode to whitewash the payday loan industry:
First, something about the economics about short-term loans, also known as payday loans or cash advances. Typically, lenders will charge $15 per $100 borrowed for a period of two weeks.
Often, misplaced outrage is expressed that that interest is more than 300 percent when measured as an annual percentage rate (APR). But this is an ill-fitting measure, because very few customers take a year to pay these loans off.
Frequently, unexpected circumstances like a car breaking down or the need for travel hits folks who are low on cash at the moment but can pay back their loan in full in two to four weeks.
Berlau seemed to blame Cordray for the payday loan interest cap instituted in Ohio; in fact, it was a ballot initiative that passed with a whopping 63 percent of the vote. Berlau did directly blame Cordray for closing a loophole that allowed payday lenders to substitute other fees to replace the exhorbitant interest charges:
But others found ways to utilize the state laws governing small lender that specifically allowed lenders to charge processing fees. The fees ended up being comparable to the old rates of interest. As explained by PaydayLoanIndustryBlog, “when a payday loan was transacted [previously] . . . a loan customer paid $575 to receive $500 in cash.”
But after the old laws were utilized in the wake of the interest cap, “with the check cashing fees added, customers pay the same $575 to walk out the door with $500 in cash”
Instead of taking this as evidence that the fees for small loans were never that excessive in the first place, he called for the Ohio legislature to pass new laws so lenders wouldn’t “continue gouging consumers through exorbitant fees.”
The individual’s lack of responsibility for his or her own circumstances has been a theme of Cordray’s regulatory enforcement endeavors. As attorney general, he tried to strong-arm banks that service mortgages and mortgage investors into reducing loan principal and interest for borrowers, even when no lender wrongdoing was found.
Berlau seems to be saying that payday loan lenders have every right to take their customers for every penny they can get away with. That's not exactly building the good kind of loyalty, is it?
WND Using Meaningless Imepachment Poll To Build Mailing List Topic: WorldNetDaily
While surfing the Web the other day, we noticed this ad from WorldNetDaily:
Clicking on the ad -- it's a Google AdSense ad, part of WND's continued softening of an anti-Google stance once so strident that WND devoted an entire chapter of his 2007 book "Stop the Presses" bashing the company -- takes you to a page featuring a poll on whether President Obama should be impeached. Much like Newsmax's online polls do, WND pretends this poll means something, claiming that "The results of these polls will be published online and are shared with major news networks and policymakers."
The real purpose of the poll is revealed by the information voters are required to provide: an email address and a zip code. The disclaimer at the end reads, "I understand that as a voter in this poll I will be signed up for FREE Worldnet Daily alerts. I can unsubscribe at any time. Votes with invalid emails will not be counted."
In other words, the poll is just a gimmick to build up WND's mailing list. Caveat emptor.
P.S. Notice that Obama is referred to only as "Barack Obama"; at no point does WND acknowledge that Obama is the president, which makes it unclear exactly from what job WND wants to see him impeached from.
Newsmax's Ruddy Declines Florida Senate Run Topic: Newsmax
Remember how Mike Haridopolos was Newsmax chief Christopher Ruddy's favorite candidate for a Florida Senate seat until his campaign kinda imploded last month? Well, Florida Republicans have been trolling for another candidate to join the race despite the existence of at least four other declared candidates, and one possibilty was ... Ruddy.
Chris Ruddy, CEO of the influential West Palm Beach-based conservative publication NewsMax, has ruled out jumping into the 2012 GOP Senate race.
But the fact that Ruddy was encouraged to consider running by Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio ("flattering," says Ruddy) is a sign of how unsettled the contest is for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
Additional confirmation comes from last week's Quinnipiac University poll that showed 53 percent of Republican voters undecided in the Senate primary and Plant City tree farmer and retired Army Reserve Col. Mike McCalister leading the current four-candidate field with a meager 15 percent.
Ruddy has come a long way in the past 15 years, hasn't he? Then again, his Clinton-hating, muckraking past might not survive scrutiny today.
Bozell Throws Christine O'Donnell Under the Bus Topic: Media Research Center
Last September, Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center issued a press release defending then-Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell against criticism of her in the media, declaring that "Christine O’Donnell and her Tea Party supporters have been smeared by every major broadcast and cable network since she won the Delaware primary against GOP establishment candidate on Tuesday night." Bozell himself added:
"This is mudsliging at its ugliest. Pure character assassination. These networks have never treated a viable Democratic candidate with this level of contempt. How dare they lecture anyone on manners or decency ever again.
"The MRC demands the media Tell The Truth! about the Tea Party, its momentum and the revolution of people whose votes are proving America is fed up with Washington."
Bozell ignored the fact that it was largely conservative commentators like Karl Rove who were the most critical of her.
O'Donnell lost the election, and now it seems Bozell wants nothing more to do with her. In the wake of O'Donnell's walking out on an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Bozell issued a statement making that abundantly clear:
In short, O'Donnell's behavior was beyond indefensible. It was downright bizarre.
The questions Piers Morgan put forward may have been trite, even seemingly silly, but given to whom they were being posed, they were not inappropriate. He asked if in her heart O'Donnell has committed lust.
He asked her views on gay marriage. He asked her views on witchcraft and on masturbation. Titillating questions? Sure, but O'Donnell has staked out public opinions on all these fronts and it is those public statements she's made that invite questions like his. She had to know she'd be asked these things when she accepted the interview invitation. If she didn't then she's living in a parallel universe. Moreover, Morgan was neither Chris Matthews rude nor Keith Olbermann offensive. He simply asked the questions.
O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions. Even worse, in declaring them inappropriate she made an ass of herself.
She answered the gay marriage question by declaring, over and over, that the answer could be found in her book, which book she was there to promote, except she refused to discuss her position on gay marriage, which was in the book. She declared she was there to "talk about the issues I chose to talk about in the book," and when asked by Morgan, "Do you answer that question in the book?" she answered, "I talk about my religious beliefs, yes. I absolutely do." But she wouldn't answer his question about gay marriage, and instead accused him of being rude to her.
Nonsensical is too kind. She is a buffoon.
O'Donnell had no right to walk off the set. But in a sense I'm glad she did -- if it means she'll never come back. Conservatives do themselves no favors by defending this woman and she is doing conservatives no favors by going on national television programs to talk about -- God only knows what she'll talk about, or not talk about, next. Please, Christine O'Donnell, call it a day.
Nevertheless, MRC employee Noel Sheppard defended the walkout, complaining in an Aug. 18 NewsBusters post that "America currently has 9.1 percent unemployment, plummeting home and stock prices, a debt explosion, a credit rating problem, and Medicare going bankrupt in twelve years," adding, "With all the problems we're currently facing, wouldn't it be better to focus on what is really concerning the public? Or is that not good for ratings?"
WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, also took O'Donnell's side. In an Aug. 20 WND "news" article, Anita Crane parroted O'Donnell's complaints, fawned over her appearance at a tea party event in Virginia, and ignored Bozell's claim that O'Donnell should have expected such questions from Morgan given her history of discussing them in public.
Of course, WND has its reasons for whitewashing O'Donnell: Its online store is selling her book, and it doesn't want to cut into sales.
Tim Adams' Crappy Master's Thesis Topic: WorldNetDaily
In reviewing Jack Cashill's WorldNetDaily column on Tim Adams and his master's thesis, we noted that the thesis contains even more distortions and omissions of fact than Cashill's column -- things that should have raised concerns among the thesis committee at Western Kentucky University, where Adams is obtaining his master's degree. We will examine them here.
One only needs to look at the title page for a big red flag in the form of an embarrassing misspelling of Obama's name:
What self-respecting professor would not have rejected Adams' thesis outright for this massive typo alone?
Adams makes other embarrassing errors as well. For instance, he writes, "The other reason anyone daring to call the current administration into question is because to quote the Rolling Stones, 'Meet the new boss/same as the old boss' ('Teenage Wasteland')" -- managing to get both the name of the song the lyric comes from and the band that performed it completely wrong. (It's "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who.) He also misspells WND editor Joseph Farah's name and commits the editing error of introducing him as "Mr. Farar" but not mentioning his first name until 12 pages later.
As for the thesis itself, once you get past the subpar stabs at Hunter Thompson-esque prose -- indeed, he portrays his entire birther adventure as an attempt at "gonzo" journalism -- it's clear that Adams does not want to tell the full story of "the conflicts surrounding speech and public discourse, and the barriers to and consequences for unpopular speech."
Adams portrays "Mr. Farar’s people at World Net Daily," along with the people at the tabloid the Globe, as outlets that treated himwell, as opposed to other outlets that "were something less than stellar when it came to the veracity and honesty of their reporting on me." But as we've detailed, WND did not engage in honesty and veracity in its reporting about Adams, actively hiding the fact that Adams first made his birther claims to a pro-white radio host broadcasting from a conference by an organization descended from Southern anti-integration activists.
Adams, like Cashill, attacks Keith Olbermann for pointing out those racist ties, claiming that "Olbermann’s smear was universally panned" and citing in response a statement attributted only to "Gossip magazines picking up the story... June 13, 2010" without an endnote to document its source (unattributed quotes are another violation of master's thesis style).
Adams goes on to claim that "Several of the facts Olbermann claimed turned out to be untrue. The C of CC website had no such screed of racist dogma posted." Adams must have missed the following from the CofCC's statement of principles:
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage.
Adams then throws in a bit of WND self-promotional boilerplate:
Keith Olbermann’s employer, MSNBC, has one million viewers. World Net Daily, whom Mr. Olbermann disparages, has five million regular subscribers and averages in excess of forty million individuals visiting per month. WND also has one of the stickiest ratings on the web, a rating based on the amount of time viewers actually spend on the site, averaging in excess of twenty minutes per visitor, far more time than the typical MSNBC viewer at approximately eight (8) minutes per broadcast.
Adams avoids explaining how closely he worked with WND in promoting his story. He has admitted with WND-affiliated lawyers supplied him with an affidavit for him to sign in which he repeated his core claim (for which he has never offered firsthand evidence to substantiate, only hearsay from his co-workers in Hawaii) that there is no long-form birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii state files -- a claim that was discredited when Obama authorized release of it in April, a few days before the May 1 date of Adams' thesis.
Adams even proudly proclaims that "On January 1st, 2011, my story was voted “The Most Covered-Up Story in America of 2010” by World Net Daily members and other Internet media members of the Associated Press." Adams gets it wrong here too; WND isn't a member of the AP, and any AP copy it features are links to other publications.
Adams also manages to miss the point of the method of Thompson's madness. He writes of his decision to attend the Council of Conservative Citizens conference, where he made his birther claim:
If Thompson’s “gonzo” is journalism as performance, then sometimes a performance can be a political tool as well. This is another technique I’ve taken from my two authors, for if I had made my initial public comments at some mainstream media outlet, they would never have been as effective. If one must go to a law enforcement conference to make an effective polemic on personal liberty (as Thompson did in Fear and Loathing), and if one must work for the National Park Service in order to sabotage the Bureau of Land Management (as Abbey did, working summers at fire stations), then where does one go to speak about issues of race and identity, if not a convention of racists?
Of course, birtherism is not about "issues of race and identity"; it's about trying to delegitimize a sitting president. And it doesn't help that Adam's birtherism comes off sounding just as crazy as the conference attendees he's purporting to mock:
In the case of President Obama’s natal narrative, a similar campaign of obfuscation has actively and admittedly been pursued by most of the major media, despite all evidence to the contrary. Groups like FactCheck.Org have a so-called Certification of Live Birth available on their website that purports to prove the President’s birth in Hawaii in 1961. The widespread media hyping of this forgery during the presidential elections of 2008 has led to several claims, none of which have any basis in reality.
Adams also forwards discredited birther claims which, as Adams seems to concede, have no basis in reality. For instance:
“The C.O.L.B. has been certified by the State of Hawaii and contains a Notary Seal from the State.”
Fact: Contrary to several media reports, it does not.
Finally, Adams seems to be oblivious (perhaps intentionally so) to the fact that his choice of venue to announce his birther claim served as a key reason not to take him seriously, or that it served as reasonable justification for believing that Adams himself had racist tendencies -- a conclusion he made little effort to address at the height of the conspiracy (remember, WND refused to honestly report this connection). Instead, he plays the victim, a truth-teller unfairly maligned:
So by telling a simple story about simple facts, I had found myself in the same position as Gideon, or perhaps Socrates, accused of corrupting youth and defaming popular idols (I was indeed accused of both charges after all anyone who instructs while holding unpopular opinions is automatically subversive). While Socrates went ahead and drank the hemlock, I took a page from Gideon and replied, “Let Baal contend for Baal if someone has broken his altar.” But as throughout all of human history, when the gods fail to show up, mercenaries from the priest’s temples still do. For you see, when gods do not act, those who rely on them for their daily bread suddenly realize they might miss a good meal.
At the end of his thesis, Adams then launches into a weird rant:
Please continue if you like, dear reader, with the idea that any criticism of Obama is just racism. Please tell me just how this loyalty to some part of the U.S. governing system has benefited black Americans? Are African-Americans better off today than twenty or thirty years ago? Whose communities suffer the most from government corruption and crimes? Whose communities suffer the most from the influx of illegal aliens and foreign immigration by non-Europeans? Black Americans used to be the number two population group in America; now they are the number four group, with both Asian and Hispanic minority groups outpacing their own population and rapidly displacing black Americans at every level of society. Entry-level jobs, college educations, medical care, political organization, personal and group wealth, life expectancy...all these indicators are now overwhelmingly in favor of non-Blacks.
The government the black community seems to so knee-jerk, genuflect before incarcerates, redlines, and ignores black Americans concerns. Homicide, police violence, and incarceration are the leading mortality and economic factors in over one half of all African-American men. STD rates, especially HIV, which hasn't gone away, is still infecting thirty thousand men who have sex with men, (gay or bi or straight on the down low, or incarcerated and forced into gay sex) every year. That's every single day, one- hundred men in America are infected, not counting their female partners, nor other groups. In some prisons, seventy-five percent of the male prison populations are infected with a variety of incurable and lethal diseases, including hepatitis, HIV, and HPV. Black communities suffer disproportionately from lack of infrastructure: an inner-city black neighborhood suffers the same lack of grocery stores, public transportation, and other access issues as a rural, white community located over thirty to fifty miles from any major city center.
Black education is a nightmare. Black students’ performance is much lower than other groups, and has stubbornly refused to improve despite forty years of manipulation of the educational system by—whom else?—the government.
Dear Black America: get real. The government is not only your enemy, it is the enemy of all poor in America, all marginalized in America, all workers in America, all families in America. The government, now led by a half-white man, is just another plan to get your vote while the ruling class (and they think they should rule over you), continues to abuse, steal, and screw your families, your communities and your futures. But don't worry, they're after all of us, or have you forgotten what your own Black leaders tried to tell you decades ago? They want to take away your rights and freedoms and make your their property all over again, only this time, it's not about race, it's all of us.
Get over Obama, he's one of them, and you've been sold a bill of goods.
How is it that this sloppily written, factually dishonest paper is considered to be a credible master's thesis by Western Kentucky University worthy of awarding a degree over? That's an issue the WKU graduate faculty that signed off on this thesis need to answer.
UPDATE: Corrected the actual song title from which Adams pulled the Who lyric.
Newsmax Repeats AZ Gov's Falsehood About Immigration Plan Topic: Newsmax
Martin Gould and Kathleen Walter begin an Aug. 19 Newsmax article this way:
President Barack Obama has finally come up with a plan for jobs, Arizona governor Jan Brewer said on Friday. The only problem is that it will only benefit illegal immigrants!
Brewer was leading the attack on the White House after details of a new deportation policy became clear. Officers have been told only to go after illegal aliens who have a criminal record and leave others alone.
That's a completely false interpretation of the immigration policy change that was recently implemented. The policy change simply invokes prosecutorial discretion to focus efforts in deporting illegal immigrants on those who have committed crimes. Similar prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases was excercised under the Bush administration.
Really?! A man who still has not proven he is a "natural born citizen" and therefore constitutionally eligible for the presidency and who released a definitively fraudulent birth certificate after years of stonewalling? Is that consistent with a fair democratic process? More importantly, we have seen what this "mullah in chief" and promoter of Islam has done not just to our country but our most important ally, Israel.
As I have said before, the happiest man in America must be James Earl Carter. Soon, hopefully as soon as November 2012, he will be replaced by Barack Hussein Obama as the worst president in America's history.
Once again adding to his list of "firsts," Obama will take the mantel of the "worst" from a man who allowed America to be taken hostage and who presided over 16 percent inflation, prompting his famous malaise speech. He was a president America could not get rid of fast enough.
The only other "first" many of us would welcome would be a change of direction by the ideologue known as Barack Obama. That would take a first from Mr. Obama's repertoire: bravery and humility.
As Richard Weaver cautioned us in his 1948 classic, ideas do indeed have consequences. Weaver's description of the "spoiled-child psychology of the urban masses" sheds light on the tactics of today's radical left, especially the recent actions of our Spoiled-Child-in-Chief, whose ideas have led to catastrophic consequences at home and around the globe.
King Obama, who had never run so much as a lemonade stand, has surrounded himself with tax cheats and economic "yes" men like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who admitted that he has "never had a real job." The same holds true for most other members of his royal court. The notable exception is his chief of staff, Bill Daley, the token businessman – a sop to "diversity."
The dearly departed include such notables as Council of Economic Advisors Chairwoman Christina Romer, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, budget chief Peter Orszag and Jared Bernstein, the economic adviser to the business-challenged veep. The latest to go is recovery guru Austan Goolsbee. All but Orszag came from academia and returned to academia, giving new importance to the adage: "Those who can do: Those who can't teach."
Thus, it is not out of character for Marxist thugs to engage in Marxist thug techniques to win hearts and minds, albeit by intimidation, fear and deceit. Although we've not seen this sort of thing in America previously, it's all boilerplate stuff. Such methods as planting fake news stories and using social media to launch the crudest attacks upon their enemies are old, tried-and-true Marxist devices for tipping the scales of popular opinion in their favor, despite their utilizing relatively new technology and venues. It also should be no surprise that their tone is often profane, since this has always been the level at which many of their number operate.
And it is completely consistent that despite his flowery (if decidedly insubstantial) oratory, everything our precious First Black President Barack Hussein Obama does appears to be calculated to drive us deeper into the pit of economic ruin - because it is.
We had no business knowing they [SEAL Team 6] exist. Their glory should be in knowing that they serve silently, secretly, and lethally. They should carry out their tour of service in complete anonymity. There's a reason spies don't wear nametags -- it's because it endangers them. And the fact that we have heard a steady drone about the tragic loss of ST6 special ops in a helicopter crash, along with soldier photos, interviews with their families, etc., puts them all at risk.
The media aren't blathering on about them because they care. They're doing it for ratings. Obama used their heroism to elevate his nothingness. And Biden, in typical Biden fashion, made sure the world knew whatever he knew.
There's the rub. Much to the consternation of far-left power players, Obama moved so hard and so fast that resistance coalesced. Though the tea party was forming before he took office, it would never have marshaled the forces it did had Obama only pretended to be the centrist he was advertised as being. Many of the maneuvers this president made that outraged conservatives also terrified beltway liberals due to their scope and audacity. It was Obama's narcissism that necessitated autocratic action toward actualizing his Marxist dream. The problem was that not all liberal leaders wanted to move that far left - or at least, not that fast. Certainly not so fast as to trigger a resistance movement.