NewsBusters' Double Standard on Nazi References Topic: NewsBusters
An Oct. 18 NewsBusters post by Paul Wilson expresses outrage that actress Susan SArandon referred to Pope Benedict XVI as a "Nazi." Of course, he was, a fact Wilson tried to downplay as much as he could: "The future Pope was forced to serve in the Hitler Youth at 14. But he was an unwilling participant, who deserted the German army before the war’s end."
Funny, we don't recall any similar outrage from Wilson -- or anyone else at NewsBusters -- at Glenn Beck portraying George Soros as a Nazi collaborator. Nor do we recall NewsBusters declaring all the right-wing attacks on President Obama as a Nazi to be out of bounds.
Aaron Klein's Anonymous Sources Get Another Story Wrong Topic: WorldNetDaily
Another anonymously sourced article by WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein has bitten the dust.
Last week, Klein granted anonymity to terrorists by quoting anonymous "Hamas leaders" as denying that an agreement has been reached for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured in 2006 by Palestinian militants during a raid on his military outpost.
Any chance Klein will issue a printed correction for the false claims of his anonymous and unverifiable sources? Don't count on it.
This is at least the second time this year that an anonymously sourced Klein article has been proven false. In January, Klein cited a senior PA official" to claim that "The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it will not veto an upcoming United Nations resolution condemning all Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem." In fact, the U.S. did veto that resolution.
Don’t look for champagne, party horns, and confetti to mark President Barack Obama’s 1,000th day in the White House today.
Indeed, some might be forgiven for feeling that these thousand days of “hope and change” seem more like a thousand years.
Partisan discord — fueled by a president who seems unable to find any common ground with the opposition party — is rife and rancorous.
The economy is seeing its worst times since the Great Depression. Internationally, the country is bogged down in two major wars, while competitors such as China and Brazil take advantage of the mayhem to seize crucial economic terrain and key industries.
The president whose approval rating stood at a stellar 69 percent on Inauguration Day has seen his popularity dip deep into the cellar on several occasions, dropping below 40 percent. Independents have left him in droves, contributing to a midterm drubbing for Democrats that was among the worst in political history.
Patten cribs without credit from a Republican National Committee-inspired Fox Nation item on purported "facts" about Obama's first 1,000 days in office -- and even then, he can't keep from embellishing them into fiction. He writes: "Healthcare: Obamacare did not reduce healthcare costs as promised and is in fact responsible for increasing costs in 2011. Health insurance premiums are up 13 percent." First, Obamacare has not fully gone into effect yet so it's disingenous for Patten to blame it for cost increases; second, even if you do accept that disingenuous premise, experts have found that only a small part of the increase can be attributed to health care reform.
Patten includes the usual Obama-bashers in his article, such as Doug Schoen and serial misleader Betsy McCaughey. He makes no effort whatsoever to provide a balanced view.
In other words, just more hack work from a conservative shill.
WND Mad Kinsolving Didn't Get To Ask His Gotcha Question Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has yet another whining fit in an Oct. 13 article, asserting that Jay Carney "avoided" a question WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving, once again baselessly suggesting that Carney knew the question Kinsolving was going to ask.
Even if Carney had known of the question -- which, again, WND presents no evidence to back up -- it's best that he did. WND reports that it was a gotcha question: "South Africa was boycotted [years ago] because of apartheid. If a Palestinian state is born that bans Jews, does the president believe that this administration should boycott it as the U.S. boycotted South Africa?" This was intended to build on an earlier gotcha question Kinsolving asked Carney on whether claims that a Palestinian state would be free of Jews was "Judenrein."
That's nothing but lazy speculation, but unfortunately it's the kind of laziness we've come to expect from the hack journalist Kinsolving has become.
MRC, AIM Try to Discredit Media Bias Survey They Don't Agree With Topic: Media Research Center
A Oct. 17 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in September, negative assessments of President Obama in the media "outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1." That finding runs counter ro the right-wing meme that the "liberal media" is in the tank for Obama. So the top right-wing media watchdogs have tried to discredit it.
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes devoted a lengthy article to countering Pew's claims, asserting there are "three major problems":
First, they didn’t study what most people would consider “the media.” Second, their definition of “positive” and “negative” press doesn’t match what media experts consider “favorable” or “unfavorable” coverage.
And, third, the researchers didn’t really even look at the stories — they let a computer (using an algorithm dubbed “Crimson Hexagon”) churn through the words and determine whether an assertion was pro- or anti-Obama (or Perry, or Romney, etc.).
Noyes complains that the Pew survey, which examined "coverage and commentary on more than 11,500 news outlets. This is a bad thing, apparently:
So for a study to include 11,500 news outlets (English-language only, the report says), the researchers have cast their net so widely that their study necessarily includes a huge number of insignificant or derivative news outlets — hundreds of iterations of the same AP story on the Web sites of local TV stations, for example. Such a study design makes it impossible to discover how the candidates were covered by the relatively small number of news media outlets that reach hundreds of thousands or millions of people each day.
[Pew also separately looked at “hundreds of thousands” of blogs, which again means that the few dozen top-ranked influential blogs are buried in a mass of data that includes vast numbers of low-trafficked and irrelevant sites.]
To study the news media’s effect on the campaign, researchers need to isolate the news media sources that are having the most profound effect — either at reaching the most viewers (like the big networks) or most influential at establishing a national narrative (like the New York Times or Politico). Throwing thousands of sources into one big pot — some with audiences in the millions, others reaching only a few hundred a day — just confuses the role that journalists actually have in setting the agenda and crafting a candidate’s image.
Of course, this runs counter to the MRC's "research" methods, which focus almost exclusively on the three major broadcast networks and deliberately precludes any examination of Fox News, even though it's the highest-rated cable news network. But then, the MRC doesn't really care about research; it cares only about advancing a political agenda.
Noyes then complains about Pew's methodology of identifying stories as "“positive,” “negative,” or “neutral” because they include "horse race" assessments:
Careful researchers would avoid blurring such “horse race” statements into an overall measure of good press/bad press. Back in August, both Rick Perry’s strongest supporters and his staunchest foes would agree that he was on top of the GOP preference polls — it’s not “the media” pushing a biased editorial line to say so. Standard measures of “good” and “bad” press include: assessments of a candidate’s personal integrity, ethics and job competence; evaluations of their policy proposals; and their capabilities as a candidate — in other words, those attributes that can make someone more or less likely to support their candidacy.
Including “horse race” assessments undoubtedly skewed the numbers in favor of Perry (who led most surveys until late September) and hurt President Obama, whose job approval ratings were on the decline. Plus, tallying overt “assertions” would also minimize the effect of daily news coverage (where the bias is usually more subtle), while boosting the effect of editorials and commentary with obvious opinions.
Our own work this campaign season shows that the national media consistently framed the debt story in a way that played to Obama’s agenda, and hit Republican candidates with mainly hostile questions premised on liberal policy assumptions. In an election context, those are big favors to the Democrats that cannot be tallied on a simple “positive” or “negative” scorecard.
Again, the MRC's "research" pales in comparison to Pew's. As we've noted, the MRC's attempt to judge questions at Republican presidential debates as "conservative" or "liberal" included no definition of what those words meant in terms of methodology, no complete list of the questions and how they were categorized, and deliberately excluded questions atdebates sponsored by Fox News.
Finally, Noyes complains that Pew used a computer algorithm because "it’s impossible that human researchers could cross-check even a tiny fraction of the coverage. Nearly all of the “anti-Obama” or “pro-Perry” stories were never reviewed by an actual researcher to check the context and meaning of the keywords the computer was trained to spot."
But mostly, Noyes is angry that Pew is trying to detroy the MRC's reason for existence:
The point of studying the media for potential bias is to make sure that journalists are not skewing the news before it reaches voters, so that the real decisions are in the hands of the people, not the media elites. For liberal journalists to hear that their profession is somehow skewed against President Obama can only encourage them to attempt to tilt the scales in the other direction. That’s a step away from the fair and balanced journalism that we need.
Actually, the MRC cares nothing about "fair and balanced journalism"; if it did, CNSNews.com wouldn't have such a pronounced right-wing bias. Its real goal is to try and discredit the media and create openings for organizations that will uncritically promote a right-wing agenda, like Fox News.
Accuracy in Media didn't like Pew's survey either. In an Oct. 18 blog post, AIM chief Don Irvine rehashed the same objections Noyes did -- too many media outlets examined, faulty computer algorithm. Irvine concluded:
If Pew was really looking for an accurate study of how the media have covered the presidential candidates then they should have used a more focused group of the top newspapers based on circulation, news sites based on web visitors and the broadcast and cable networks, which combined are far more representative of the mainstream media than the extremely broad definition they used. But that probably would have given them far different results and defeated their intended goal of making it look like the media have been far more favorable to Republicans – even to the point of being anti-Obama — which would only serve to help the President explain his low poll numbers and other struggles as he seeks reelection.
Nice try Pew, but this report smells of liberal bias.
Of course. If Irvine doesn't agree, it must be liberal bias, right?
WND's Klein: We're Invading Uganda Because George Soros Wants Us To Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein's is obsessed with linking George Soros to anything and everything on the non-conservative side through tenuous fits of guilt-by-association.
Klein takes this to absurd heights in an Oct. 15 WorldNetDaily article, in which he asserts that President Obama's action of sending "American troops" into Uganda was motivated by "billionaire activist George Soros' ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation's fledgling oil industry."
Yes, Klein really is saying that we're sending troops to Uganda to protect Soros' oil interests:
Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda's oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country's leadership.
Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.
In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda's national oil and gas policy.
Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.
Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP's oil work.
PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda's oil sector.
PWYP is directly funded by Soros' Open Society as well as the the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.
The billionaire's Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to "identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals."
It's not until the 19th paragraph that he gets around to hinting at the actual reason for intervention: to target the Lord's Resistance Army. Surprisingly, Klein does concede (unlike Rush Limbaugh) that the LRA's leader, Joseph Kony, is a very bad man: "Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court."
Then, it's back to guilt-by-association. Klein also rehashes his usual attacks on Obama advier Samantha Power, smearing her as an "Arafat deputy" (in fact, that's just more guilt-by-association -- she once served on a committee with an Arafat deputy). Power is an advocate of the idea that U.S. foreign policy should be guided by the principle of the "responsibility to protect" -- which Klein despises because Soros has a guilt-by-association link to it, not out of any philosophical differences with it.
CNS' Jeffrey Still Pushing Kagan Recusal (And Ignoring Thomas' Conflict of Interest) Topic: CNSNews.com
Terry Jeffrey is still trying to force Elena Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the constitutionality of health care reform.
An Oct. 14 CNSNews.com article by Jeffrey details CNS' latest attempt to obtain internal documents from Kagan's tenure as solicitor general in an attempt to demonstrate that Kagan played some role in defending the Obama administration's position on health care reform. All Jeffrey can come up with, however, is that Kagan named a deputy to handle the issue, and that efforts were made to wall off Kagan from handling the case in anticipation of a Supreme Court nomination.
This time around, a judge ruled that CNS and the right-wing group Judicial Watch could not obtain emails Kagan "sent from her DOJ email account to people in the White House—in which she discussed her recusal decisions as solicitor general—because the emails were 'used for a purely personal objective.'"
As per usual, Jeffrey does not mention conflict-of-interest issues regarding a conservative Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas' wife is a a right-wing activist who has attacked health care reform as unconstitutional. Thomas also failed to disclose his wife's income from activist groups for several years.
Indeed, a search of the CNS archives indicates that it has never reported on Thomas' conflict of interest.
WND's Erik Rush Goes Conspiracy-Happy Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush manages to squeeze two unproven conspiracies into one blog post.
Writing at something called Terrible Truth, Rush spins a conspiracy theory around the claim that "One of Barack Obama’s first official acts upon being sworn in as President of the United States was to return a bust of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill to Britain." In fact, the bust was on loan to the United States, not a gift, and was scheduled to be returned at the end of the Bush presidency.
Despite that non-factual basis of his assertion about the bust, Rush goes on to blather that "many observers surmised that this was a symbolic slight meant to punish the British government’s imperialistic policies of the past – in particular, those which had detrimentally affected the people of Kenya, from whence Barack Obama Sr., had come."
But that's not to be the craziest thing Rush writes. This is (emphasis is Rush's):
There is a more likely explanation, if one understands that the President’s biological father was in fact Malcolm X, rather than Barack Obama Sr. The slight against the Obama’s sensibilities was far more painful.
Just three days before his father’s assassination, England had considered banning Malcolm forever from its soil.
I suppose Obama figured that since England dissed his daddy, it was his duty to pay them back. So, he kicked England out of America the way they tried to kick Malcolm out of England.
So Rush is a birther too. He is a WND columnist, after all.
Tom Blumer devotes an entire Oct. 14 NewsBusters post to the supposition that coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests is driving down the ratings of network evening news programs. Blumer has no proof of that, of course, which he eventually admits: "It's a little early to ascribe the ratings drop to Occupy Wall Street. Another reported drop next week would be more definitive. It certinaly bears watching."
Blumer surely knows that correlation does not equal causation. Doesn't he?
Does Larry Klayman Want Obama Killed? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman's Oct. 14 WorldNetDaily column is a long screed against Iran , with the typical swipesat President Obama and Hillary Clinton. He concludes it by writing, "The bottom line is this, my friends. It's time to take the mullahs out, whatever the cost."
Now, Klayman has repeatedly libeled Obama by calling him a Muslim, and, morespecifically, the "mullah-in-chief." Klayman has also called for an "Assault on Washington," though he claims he does not advocate "violent revolt."
Has Klayman changed his mind about violence? Is Obama is among the "mullahs" Klayman wants to take out, whatever the cost? Obama is the "mullah in chief," after all, so Klayman likely wants him taken out even more.
In an Oct. 17 FrontPageMag article, Jamie Glazov writes that "WikiLeaks recently released a secret cable revealing that President Obama tried to apologize to the Japanese for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during his tour to that country in 2009." Glazov went on to add, "That Obama sought to apologize to the Japanese for ending a brutal war that they started and for doing it in such a way that it saved millions of lives on both sides is a disturbing testament to the destructive mindset of the man that leads the United States." At the end of the column, Glazov asserted again that Obama was "planning to apologize for the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Glazov is lying. In fact, the WikiLeaks cable in question says no such thing; rather, it repeats speculation from "anti-nuclear groups" on whether Obama would apologize, but goes on to state that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'non-starter.'"
Even Fox News has apologized for reporting that an apology was planned. Now it's Glazov's turn to apologize.
Occupy Wall Street Derangement Syndrome (WorldNetDaily Division) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Tea-party activists are salt-of-the-earth, hardworking Americans who, previous to their activism in 2009, had never marched with placards or attended rallies or town halls. Their rallying cry is the rule of law and getting government off their backs. On the other hand, the Wall Street Occupiers are jobless, directionless riff-raff who don't think government can ever be big enough if their every need is not being addressed.
And who are the "occupiers"? Have you heard them interviewed? Do any of them sound like they know what they are talking about? Do they have a plan other than to agitate and make noise? Do they really not understand they are promoting a form of tyranny rather than liberty? Do they seem like people who understand the way the world works? Are they people of accomplishment? Do they have a work ethic? Are they the kind of salt-of-the-earth Americans you would like as neighbors?
Maybe it's just me, but that's not what I see.
These demonstrators sound like spoiled children.
I've yet to hear a cogent articulation of their grievances from any one of them.
It sounds like they hate free enterprise and blame capitalism for the economic crisis America is experiencing – when, in fact, what we are experiencing is a government-made economic mess that is getting worse with each new initiative from Washington.
Former Gov. Huey Long of Louisiana once said, "Fascism will come to America, but they'll call it 'Americanism'!" Strike out "fascism" and put in "communism," and you've got the wisest comment so far on the matter of the "Occupy Wall Street" vent-a-thon. If Stalin were alive he'd drop dead from hearing all the pure communist battle cries reverberating through the capitalist canyons of Wall Street. Even Stalin's Communists felt the need to accuse rich capitalists of illegality. Now the mask is off. Now it's OK to say, "Nobody needs that much money," and "Share the wealth!" Communism killed and enslaved many more people over much more of the earth's surface for far longer periods than even Hitler's Nazis. Obviously, American communists would prefer to call themselves "progressives" or "redistributionists." Sometimes they don't call themselves anything. They just say, "Here are some bills we have to get passed!"
My concern goes far beyond any foothold communism under any name might seize in America. We know the danger of firearms and high explosives in the wrong hands, trains carrying ethanol that turn over and burn, fallen electric wires sputtering in the grass, bears popping up in your pup tent and others. A mob is a "wild animal" that can likewise explode and kill.
(Forgive me again, Mark Twain. The difference between a mob and an orderly demonstration is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug!)
Condoning a mob, as the president has done along with hordes of prominent Americans, is quite literally condoning someone driving at top speed with a glass of straight vodka in his sipping hand. (Beer doesn't work here; it's not strong enough or fast-acting enough.) Condoning a mob is allowing a male pilot to fondle a female flight attendant in the cockpit of a fully loaded passenger jet at 32,000 feet. And that's just CONDONING! Encouraging, promulgating, organizing are even higher crimes.
And that's "flat-field-sunny-day," when national nerves are normal. In today's America such mob-ism is pleading for catastrophe. And Nancy Pelosi says, about the mobsters, "God bless them!" How odd that those who hate guns love mobs!
I have heard that rich left-wing knuckleheads are paying some of the folks camping out on Wall Street and in financial districts around the country. At first, it only amused me to think that people who refuse to be paid minimum wage to flip burgers, which is at least a job that can lead to better jobs and is understood by everyone to be an actual job, were quite willing to be paid a minimum wage to stand around in filthy clothes and defecate on the sidewalk.
As a career, I suppose it offers certain advantages; namely the freedom not to shower, show up at a given time or deal with those pesky dry cleaners. On the other hand, I had always assumed that even liberal-arts majors generally aspire to become something other than a bum.
If today, as my wife's magazines keep insisting, 70 is the new 60, 60 is the new 50, and 50 is the new 40, these young guttersnipes remind us that 20 is the new 10.
That's not to say that they are all young and spoiled, because some are obviously old and spoiled. They are the aged hippies, still hanging on to their granny glasses and ponytails. They're the sad relics who show up at the airport, having no place to go, but merely in the hope that some obliging TSA agent will pat them down.
As the Internet and social media help increasingly well organized Marxist protesters bring their "Occupy Wall Street" mobs to cities across America, the sense that history is repeating could not be more keen. Not since French peasants dragged nobles to the guillotines have so many been so excited about emptying the pockets of so few.
In Glorious Leader Obama's America, this is not a fad, and it is not a passing trend. This is, instead, a cultural shift that sees whining entitlement, peevish jealousy and naked covetousness become the public norm for the liberal left and the Democratic Party in America.
A hilarious image posted online sums up the hypocrisy of the protesters, who snarl and growl about "evil corporations" while clothed in, decorated by, transmitted across and connected through the products of the capitalist industries they mindlessly condemn. Amusing as this may be, there is nothing funny about the proliferation of "occupy" protests. These demonstrations are blooming like fungus throughout our beleaguered nation. They are a threat to every productive citizen.
Occupy Wall Street – and the contrived movement growing from its ranks – is warning writ large. It is not surprising that the loitering, bleating legions of spoiled communist hippies have trashed the areas in which they squat, nor should anyone be surprised that they've graduated to terrorizing business executives and their families at home. What too few people understand is that the twin calls for violence and redistributive social justice are inseparable. You cannot take the contents of a man's wallet without first shoving the barrel of a gun in his face or the point of a knife in his ribs – and you cannot have a revolution without lopping off a few heads.
Violence, which liberals so adore when it serves their re-imagining of our free republic as an "enlightened" totalitarian state, is the pragmatic means to their impractical egalitarian ends. Exhortations to this violence, so perfectly expressed by lib union thugs, are not theoretical, figurative, or metaphorical. They are real, and they are the future of a society whose leftist president has done everything he can to further a national narrative of class warfare. Every time Obama mewls about those who are not "paying their fair share," he is really demanding that government thieve from producers under threat of violent retribution.
The mobs will kill you to take what they believe they're owed. They'll do it in the name of a social "contract" you've never signed. They'll do it en masse, with rage in their eyes and Marxist slogans on their lips.
When the occupation gets to your lawn, remember that.
The dreams-from-my-father moment appears to be nearing as riots, sit-ins and protests grow throughout the country. "Social-justice" miscreants – a whole new generation of '60s hippies – have escaped their cages and are running wild in New York, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago and other U.S. cities. And, make no mistake about it, they're looking for red meat.
This weird mixture of commies and cuckoos are ecstatic over what BHO's policies have done to the U.S. economy in less than three years, and must surely be drooling over the thought of five more years of economic destruction. They believe – or at least they believe they believe, in the greatest of all contradictions – that by destroying wealth, there will be more wealth to share with "the masses" … you know, like in Mao's China, Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union, and Castro's Cuba.
The occupiers of Wall Street were silent as the president of the United States approached the podium in downtown Manhattan and began to speak. Obama was expected to embrace the protesters, but much to their surprise, he delivered a stinging attack.
"You have disgraced yourself by your public displays of indecency, the disrespect for your fellow citizens who live and work here and by trashing this park and the restrooms of nearby merchants. Just look at some of the signs you are carrying. 'Jump you F---ers,' pigs in police uniforms and 'Shoot Sperm not Bullets.' Is that who you really are?
"I know that many of you are worried and frustrated with this economy, but don't take it out on the job creators. While some in my party have expressed solidarity with you, I cannot condone a group that blocks traffic and defecates on a squad car. You should be ashamed of yourselves!
"Go home and make this country a better place. If you don't have a job, take advantage of one of our programs to retrain for the jobs that go unfilled. While you are collecting unemployment checks, do something positive with your time. Begin cleaning up your neighborhood or work as a volunteer at a local hospital."
The alarm clock jarred me from my sleep. It had all been a dream!
I've been following the antics of the Wall Street protesters over the last few weeks with a combination of amusement, pity, tolerance and disgust.
On one hand, their list of (cough) demands is so laughable that they defy logical response. Open-borders migration? Free college education? Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment? (That was probably the funniest.)
But I also feel some pity for these poor people. They can't help what they feel. All their lives they've attended liberal bastions of progressive brainwashing (government schools) and have never been exposed to any diversity of thought or opinion, much less real-world experience. They've been thoroughly indoctrinated into socialistic ideals, slurping down the progressive agenda like candy.
These protests are so valuable to the dark forces that are now controlling the actions, demands and purpose of the protesters. Yes, it's true: These young people are coming over to the Dark Side of the Force.
I call it the Dark Side because this force – progressivism, socialism and ultimately communism – is antithetical in every way to the principles laid out in our Constitution. Up to this point the protesters have been comparatively innocent, the natural offshoot of a lifetime of privileged existence and socialist education. But now they're being actively programmed by the Dark Side. These evil influences are altering the protesters' lines of thinking and behavior into paths that ultimately will shape not only their future, but potentially the future of our nation as well.
But our modern Darth Vaders don't paint it that way. They say they want to be "compassionate" and promote "equality" and "social justice." What they don't say is that these goals can only be achieved at the point of a gun and at the expense of freedom and liberty. It's a seductive thing, this Dark Side, and the young and gullible are easily swayed by it, particularly after a lifetime of being spoon-fed government educational twaddle.
For the past month, the liberal fascist mobs have been protesting American exceptionalism, capitalism and its symbolic embodiment, Wall Street in Manhattan. These legions of largely white hippie-types, are unwashed, unshaved, unemployed, unemployable masses; prone to violence, conspicuous drug use, rantings, cursing, public defecation on police cars and promiscuous sex – yet are clueless as to what, why or who they are even protesting.
For example, some of the young liberal fascists say they are protesting Wall Street corruption, government bailouts of Wall Street, capitalism and the banking industry, yet they seem ignorant to the fact President Obama and his socialist and crony-capitalist policies are behind all of the Wall Street bailouts – TARP I, TARP II, QE1, QE2, GM/Chrysler bailouts, Obama's green energy scams like Solyndra, First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corp. and Abengoa SA.
Don't these nitwit socialists know anything about Obama's union bailouts, which are naked slush funds and kickbacks schemes to his $1 billion re-election campaign? Moreover, 20 percent of Obama's campaign contributions in 2008 were from Wall Street money, and surprise, surprise, surprise … these Democrats want to elect this same Marxist-Leninist in 2012 who gave us higher taxes, higher deficits and more job-killing regulations.
As the useful idiot mobs rant and rave daily against capitalism in New York and throughout America holding their fancy iPhones, iPods, iPads, Blackberries, Twitter and Facebook accounts, wearing their Gucci gym shoes and marijuana-scented designer clothing, we are witnessing Lenin's famous prophecy come to pass before our eyes – "The capitalists would sell us [communists] the noose to hang them with."
Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch, Wayne Allyn Root Edition Topic: Newsmax
My businesses are all run with Apple computers. And imagine this — all of those advances were accomplished without government involved. What a remarkable legacy. Steve Jobs goes down in history as one of the great American inventors and visionaries with Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and Henry Ford.
Compare this amazing legacy to that of Barack Obama. Steve Jobs was the great job maker; Obama the great job taker. Jobs was the great creator; Obama the great destroyer. Everything Jobs touched turned to gold; everything Obama touches turns to coal. Jobs’ great creations were the iPhone, iPod, and iPad; Obama’s are iDeficit, iDebt, iInsolvency, and iBankruptcy.
Jobs lived for risk and adventure, and asked for nothing from government — the epitome of rugged individualism, self-reliance, and American ingenuity. Obama lives for the safety net and expects government to do everything — from creating jobs, to picking winners and losers in the business world, to protecting us from cradle to grave.
Examine the results of Obama’s devotion to big government. Obama’s legacy is the loss of our country’s AAA credit rating for the first time in history; the worst economy since 1929; the worst collapse of housing in history; the collapse of retail sales and consumer confidence; true unemployment in the 20 percent range; a resurgence of inflation; the great “green energy” fraud that cost taxpayers billions; bailouts of automakers that cost taxpayers billions; a massive failed stimulus that cost taxpayers billions; more debt created than all other presidents combined; the greatest number of Americans in history on food stamps (45 million); the ban of offshore oil drilling costing tens of thousands of jobs; lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama for trying to enforce U.S. immigration law; and not surprisingly, the fastest collapse on record of a new president’s popularity.
Obama has bested Steve Jobs in one way. He has done more damage to America in three short years than all the great things Jobs could create in 30 years.
Jobs Maker. Or Jobs Killer. Which vision better embodies the American character? The iPhone or the iPhony?
WND Columnist's Race-Baiting: Scary Black People Are Coming To Get You Topic: WorldNetDaily
Could Colin Flaherty's Oct. 13 WorldNetDaily column be more race-baiting? Doubtful:
Thank God for YouTube. Or else we never would have know that hundreds of times in more than 50 cities since 2010, groups of black people have been roaming the streets of America – assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing.
But today the denials are crumbling. The curtains are lifting. We now can see what so many public officials and media have been curiously desperate to deny: Race riots are back.
In February 2010, at a Macy's department store a few blocks from city hall, more than 100 black people erupted in fights and destruction.
In July 2011, hundreds of blacks created an "astonishing" amount of violence at downtown Philadelphia restaurants, hotels and bars.
July 4, 2010 – stop me if you've heard this before – hundreds of black people storm the streets of South Philadelphia: beating, looting, destroying.
July 4, 2011, 10-20 black people assault and stab a student and his dog from LaSalle University. He's still alive, though many people do not know why. The dog probably saved him.
March 17, 2010, dozens of black people fight in a clothing store while onlookers laugh and cheer.
In Spring of 2010, police break up a black flash mob in the Tioga-Nicetown section of Philly. Kids were bored and acting stupid, said the reporter. The video tells another story.
In the Summer of 2011, Jeremy Schenkel recounted the attack on him to CBS3 Eyewitness News. He says the kids were laughing as they beat and kicked him, and not only was there the attacking mob, there was also a group of kids cheering them on.
"Almost like an admiring group that was following them, just kind of ragging on people, and one of those guys said, 'It's not our fault you can't fight,'" Schenkel recalls.
Then came the reader comments to the race-neutral stories: Hundreds and hundreds wanted to know why reporters repeatedly refused to identify the race of the attackers.
People knew two things were important: One, large groups of black people were systematically assaulting people in their town; and two, lots of people seemed way too heavily invested in not talking about the central organizing feature of the crime: The gangs of violent criminals were black.
The list of cities goes on and on. As do the denials and excuses.
In Chicago, congressman and former Black Panther leader Bobby Rush says this kind of crime is common in black neighborhoods, and the only reason anyone is noticing now is because white people are getting hurt.
Rush is probably right. Which means this problem is hundreds of times worse than we think.
In sum: Scary black people are coming to assault all you good white people and steal your stuff, just like black people do. Obviously, the solution is to make more white babies.
The NewsBusters Comedy Police Have Spoken! Topic: NewsBusters
Who knew that NewsBusters has a division that decides what is and isn't a joke?
Last month, if you'll remember, NewsBusters' Tom Blumer was in freakout mode because he decided that North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue was dead serious when she said that "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years," going on to attack anyone who portrayed it as a joke.
Conversely, an Oct. 12 post by Ken Shepherd asserts that Michele Bachmann was totally joking when she said that "When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside won, the devil is in the details," and that it's bizarre for MSNBC's Chris Matthews to take her seriously and think that it "may be something more sinister, or at least cynically calculated to appeal to 'strange, far right' Christian voters."
For some reason, Shepherd didn't fully quote Bachmann, only the "devil's in the details" part.
Well. Glad we cleared that up. But should an organization that puts out a painfully unfunny "comedy" webcast really be trusted to make judgments about what is and isn't a joke?